Jump to content

Nev Met

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nev Met last won the day on December 14 2013

Nev Met had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

122 Excellent

About Nev Met

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. You've got yourself into a bit of a muddle here, which is entirely understandable because it's not as straightforward as it first seems. Lets go back to the 1st Oct 2012, when PoFA first came in. At that time, in England and Wales, PoFA was supposed to be the ONLY way for PPCs to enforce private parking tickets. This is evident from two sources. First the new BPA Ltd CoP which only covered PoFA and secondly because the KADOE contracts between the BPA Ltd members and the DVLA were for PoFA purposes only - I want to be quite specific on that, the KADOE contracts only permitted the use
  2. ...................because the initial appeal to the PPC should always follows the same carefully worded format irrespective of whether the NtK arrives on time (or not) or whether either of the Notices are compliant or not The PPCs use templated NtKs, so most smart people use templated appeals - keeps it simple and it's scalable.
  3. The Registered Keeper has the option if they so choose to name the driver and thereby legally absolve themselves from 'keeper liability' under PoFA. No one has yet pointed that out that option to the OP I rather think that's an option for the RK to consider (and discard) if they want to, after all, should this matter go pear shaped it's the RK that's left to carry the can and not the anonymous posters on this forum
  4. It's an interesting discussion point but first and foremost the NtD that was posted was next to useless for checking for PoFA compliance but what it did show was the serial number of the ticket which would link this OP with that specific ticket. Back to the discussion point. The NtD was issued today, so whether it complies with PoFA or not does not necessarily preclude the PPC from later (lawfully) claiming keeping liability under PoFA. PoFA states (in laymans terms) that it's either a NtD at the time or a NtK by post to the keeper within 14 days. There is therefore nothing to preve
  5. I've speed read this thread so apologies in advance if I've missed something. As I understand it the RK was not the driver. The ®K has been timed out (fairly or otherwise) from going down the appeals route. It is however still not too late for the ®K to identify the driver and thereby start the whole appeal process (again?) for the driver. If these were BPA Ltd members and therefore POPLA was the route I would strongly recommend this, however, as they are believed to be IPC Ltd, then it's a judgement call, but to be honest, if the driver hadn't forewarned me about it I'd have no
  6. The website I looked at indicates (for the self ticketing service) a £20 commission for each ticket paid (the £5 commission is for when a landowner has successfully referred another client to APS and it is a 'kick back' for each ticket that the additional client issues which is then paid) What is interesting to me however is whether or not your NtD (the ticket on the wind screen) was from such a 'self ticketing' operation because when (if) APS buy the registered keeper data from the DVLA there is a potential argument that Para 11 of PoFA is not properly satisfied and therefore there is no
  7. You need to in the first instance a) anonymize your first post so that the driver is not identified and b) remove the NTD thumbnail post completely because UKCPS will be able to identify your specific case from it and in any case it serves no purpose posting it up. Wait for the postal Notice to the (registered) keeper. As Armadillo has said they are members of the IPC Ltd so they don't use POPLA but the IPC Ltd's own 'independent' appeal service. Also, UKCPS generally don't go down the 'damages' route their Parking Charges are based on a 'Contractual Sum' and therefore arguing (
  8. I sometimes think that there is a tendency to delve too deep into the non-critical detail, certainly with ParkingEye cases, at the outset rather than cut to the quick. The most important issue of all is getting an initial appeal in to PE within 28 days, do that and everything else can fall into place later. It's the POPLA appeal (if it ever comes to that) where the ducks need to be properly lined up.
  9. Appeal to Parking Eye as the Registered Keeper ONLY as follows (either by their online appeals portal or by post (if post GET PROOF OF POSTAGE)) :- Your name Your Address Date A Formal Appeal Against A Parking Charge Dear Sir Your ref; Parking Charge number xxxxxxxx Whilst the DVLA may have informed you that I was the registered keeper of the motor vehicle in question, at this stage I make no admission as to the identity of the either the keeper or the driver at the material time. This appeal is on the following grounds:- • Your Notice does not comply
  10. I'm not really trying to second guess anything, there's no need to when the DVLA are patiently sitting there drumming their fingers and awaiting your enquiry so that they can tell you exactly what's gone on behind the scenes.
  11. OK thanks, nothing further to say on the matter then........
  12. Just out of interest, Is your niece the registered keeper? If not, does she live away from the registered keepers address whilst she is at college and have the full use of the vehicle whilst she is away? Thanks
  13. BPA CoP V5 (google BPA Ltd Code of Practice click on Version 5) and go to page 9 - last paragraph on the page is 16.5 which states:- "16.5 If your landowner provides a concession that allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid Blue Badge you must not issue it with parking charge notices." Was the BB 'valid' ? (irrespective of whether she put the wrong time up or not) If it was valid, throw this paragraph as an addition into the POPLA mix - it shouldn't have been given a ticket, no ifs no buts.
  14. Indeed, the BPA Ltd latest CoP (V5 Oct 2014 onwards) 19.5 now says ".......this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable". - which is a tad premature as the appeal is still pending but that's the nature of the beast. ANPR Ltd only enforce under 19.6 (Contractual Sum - ie the price for parking other than in accordance with the other rules) so in my mind Beavis will not impact on those who use the Contractual Charge model. If Beavis wins then it could be that the 'damages' model is dead in the water and they all switch to the 'contractual sum' but to be honest, anyones gue
  15. It isn't so much to do with them being right or wrong. The generally held belief is that the only way that you can chase the Keeper is under PoFA. Therefore, irrespective of whether you actually mention PoFA, if you threaten the Keeper then you must be doing so under PoFA - that's the rationale. Under PoFA one of the requirements is that the creditor (or creditor's agent) made an application to the SoS for the RK data and that the RK data was supplied by the SoS (SoS's agent being the DVLA of course). It must also be a separate request for each NtK. It follows therefore that if such an ap
  • Create New...