Jump to content

Nev Met

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Nev Met

  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 of DVLA data for PoFA purposes. nothing else. Your argument about 'they can't be mixed and compliant' was 100% correct at this point in time and for the next three or four months only. You see what happened was that over the following three(ish) months, it was discovered that NtKs were being served out of time and further investigation showed that the DVLA was largely at fault because they were failing, on a significant number of occasions, to turn around data requests so that the NtK could be served within the required 14 days. As I recall, the DVLA's first response was that if the PPC got the data late then tough luck, they couldn't use it and would have to destroy it. However, by the end of January (maybe February) the DVLA had altered it's position (I'm guessing from BPA Ltd pressure who's members were paying for and requesting data in a timely fashion but through no fault of their own were then effectively hamstrung from using it simply because the DVLA couldn't service the requests in time). So the 'new' arrangements were that if the PPC got the data in sufficient time then there was an expectation (from the DVLA) that it should be used for PoFA purposes only and if they got it late then they could use the old pre-PoFA 'driver only' method of enforcement. At the stoke of a pen the DVLA had created a two tier system of parking enforcement. Now this has since changed again and the DVLA has finally surrendered it's position with the expectation that in time it's PoFA out of time it's not, and have left it down to the PPCs to enforce as they see fit with the data they obtain so long as they stay within the CoP (more or less) This means that the DVLA are happy for a PPC to start off with PoFA and switch to non-PoFA or start off with non-PoFA and switch to PoFA so long as they follow the rules. So who can say with 100% certainty exactly what the Notice is that the PPC sticks on the windscreen of the car, is it a NtD served under PoFA or is it simply a pre-PoFA PCN? This isn't helped by the fact that when PoFA first came in the DVLA was lobbied to put pressure on the industry for all PoFA Notices served to be called specifically a 'Notice to Driver' and a 'Notice to Keeper' - after all that the name given to those documents in the Act. Had they done so then motorists would have been 100% sure from the outset whether or not the PPC was seeking to pursue using PoFA - the DVLA declined to do so. In summary, we have a situation today where the Notice on the vehicle either may or may not be a Notice to Driver given under PoFA, if it isn't (either by design or mistake) then it follows that it is not a NtD (as prescribed under PoFA) and if the PPC were so inclined there is nothing therefore to prevent them serving a postal NtK within 14 days and getting themselves (back) on track. There is nothing in Sch 4 of PoFA that prohibits any such action.
  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 prevent a PPC from remedying a 'non (PoFA) compliant' NtD by serving a followup 'PoFA compliant' NtK within 14 days. As the NtD posted in this case identified the specific incident and was issued only today any issues of compliance could potentially have led to a PoFA compliant NtK being sent out in plenty of time. Unlikely I'll admit but still an interesting discussion point and the reason that i always advise people who've received a 'shoddy' NtD to wait 14 days before kicking up a fuss with the BPA Ltd, DVLA etc etc......
  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 qualms about putting the hassle back on him/her and let them come on here for their own advice on the appeal process.
  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 keeper liability. So we will patiently await the NtK to arrive through the post and then require the DVLA to disclose exactly who made the application for the data and in what capacity.
  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 (solely) that it is 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' is a sure fire way to lose both appeals.
  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 with the statutory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you are therefore legally barred from pursuing the keeper. • The £100 parking charge is excessive. It does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss caused by the alleged parking contravention; as such it is a legally unenforceable penalty charge. • You do not have sufficient contractual authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charge notices. You have set out your case in your parking charge notice; this is the response and the formal appeal. You therefore have two options; 1) Either accept the grounds of appeal and cancel the parking charge Or 2) Refuse the appeal and provide me with the unique 10 digit code in order that the matter can be properly referred to POPLA for independent adjudication. Finally, I have nothing further to add to this appeal and therefore will not respond to any further correspondence with your company; so either cancel the parking charge or provide the POPLA code as required by your industry Code of Practice. Kind regards (Print the name of the Registered Keeper here - do NOT sign it)
  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 guess is as good as mine. One things for sure though, the DVLA will already (even now) have a data release document (just in case Beavis wins) to justify the continual sale of data and that's why it's so important that people sign up with Michael Green at 'challengethefine'
  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 application wasn't actually made (and there are plenty of PPCs who like to recycle RK data or use company information from the livery of the vehicle etc) then they cannot seek to recover the alleged debt from the Keeper. It is entirely reasonable therefore for every single RK who receives a NtK which either claims under PoFA or otherwise suggests keeper liability (in one form or another) to enquire of the DVLA whether or not the statutory requirement of paragraph 11 of PoFA was complied with. Something along the lines of:- The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 – Paragraph 11 Name Address Date Dear Sir, As DVLA records will confirm, I am the registered keeper of a motor vehicle registration number................................ I recently received a postal Parking Charge Notice demand for a payment from a Private Parking Company. The Notice makes reference to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’) and ‘keeper liability’. I understand that Paragraph 11 of PoFA makes it a statutory requirement for the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) to have made an application for the keeper’s details to the Secretary of State I therefore require the DVLA, acting on behalf of the SoS, to provide the following information. 1) Confirmation (or otherwise) that my data was requested and supplied in accordance with that statutory requirement. 2) The full details of the name and address of the requestor 3) The date of the request 4) The date that my personal details were given 5) The date of the alleged contravention specified by the requestor 6) The details of the alleged parking contravention. 7) The location of the alleged parking contravention Regards Registered Keeper (DVLA email address for this enquiry [email protected])
  16. My understanding is that the Beavis case concerns ParkingEye and the amount of damages for breach of contract (BPA CoP 19.5) whereas ANPR Ltd go down the contractual charge route (BPA CoP 19.6) so that's like comparing apples with oranges. If however, you wrote back as you say and appealed within the 28 days (and you still have a copy of the appeal letter?) then ANPR Ltd were required, under the BPA Ltd CoP to deal with your appeal within 35 days full stop......(if it was two years ago then it's the CoP that was applicable at the time and V1 (Oct 2012 to 12th March 2013) states "22.8 You must acknowledge or reply to the challenge within 14 days of receiving it. If at first you only acknowledge the challenge, you must accept or reject the challenge in writing within 35 days of receiving it" If ANPR Ltd failed to comply with the CoP then they have also failed to properly deal with their ATA guidelines that set out the pre-action protocols that must be followed before they can commence proceedings through the County Court.
  17. So are they are either claiming 'keeper liability' under PoFA or that the Registered Keeper (and initial appellant) was the driver, taking everything into account on the balance of probabilities
  18. Did you at anytime admit to being the driver? As regards the draft court particulars, some of us raised this very issue a couple of years ago when another well known PPC was doing it and to my astonishment we were informed (by a senior Consumer Lawyer) that this is a well used and acceptable 'tactic', it is merely a way of making a statement of intent. I don't agree with that assessment but my opinion counts for didly squat so there we have it.
  19. The single point that "As the registered keeper I am not liable for this charge" is, in my opinion, insufficient and therefore dangerously close to not being a genuine appeal/challenge. You are therefore running the risk of being 'timed out' on your 28 day window to appeal. I would definitely follow this up, sooner rather than later, with a more substantive appeal in order to ensure that you at least qualify for a POPLA code. The BPA Ltd have given their members a lot of leeway with what is a genuine appeal and what isn't and it is a fact of life that both the BPA Ltd and the DVLA will side with the PPC on these sort of issues.
  20. Does any of the correspondence from the company make any reference whatsoever to the keeper being (potentially) liable? (I'm looking at it from the DVLA angle here - same as in the other Capital2coast thread)
  21. Does any of the correspondence from the company make any reference whatsoever to the keeper being (potentially) liable? (I'm looking at it from the DVLA angle here)
  22. You have 28 days in which to submit an appeal/challenge. If your letter states that, 'This is not an appeal' then after 28 days you are out of time to appeal, and consequently you will have lost your entitlement to refer the matter to an IAS - which suits the PPC down to the ground. Therefore your letter should have a banner headline clearly stating "This is a Formal Appeal" .............and I would do as f16 has suggested
  23. Just adapt it to suit your circumstances, if it doesn't apply then dump it and renumber the paragraphs accordingly. To be honest, so long as it has the 'not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and lack of contractual authority' the rest of it is largely window dressing (but still a useful insight into why these charges are not as cut and dry as the PPCs would like you to believe)
  24. My advice is never ever phone any organisation associated with the PPC industry - that includes operators, the BPA Ltd, debt collectors and the DVLA - keep it to email and then there's no later dispute over what was or was not said
  25. I have a car, I'm not a mechanic and can just about figure out how to put oil in it but I understand that it has an engine and that so long as I put diesel in it it works. I don't understand why it works, all the technical stuff, it is enough for me to know that it does work. I call this 'yellow jacket syndrome', you are coming at this from a position and thought process that this is somehow a legitimate process and on a par with a police or local authority ticket. This is entirely understandable and in fact it is how this private parking business model works. The other issues (grace period and signage) are fine and dandy if you want to get into a protracted argument with the operator but don't lose sight of what will give you a slam dunk win, by all means throw the other arguments in but you must understand and accept they are not the necessarily the silver bullet you need.
×
×
  • Create New...