PCN with incorrect registration but received a NTO

[mattjs]

Hi there,

 

I received a PCN attached to my vehicle that had the incorrect vehicle registration number on it. I therefore assumed that it would be rendered void and thus I didn't bother appealing it. However today I received a NTO in the post that actually shows my vehicle registration number (not the same as was on the PCN) demanding that I pay up. Crucially, the letter states that I have lost my right to appeal because I should have appealed within 14 days. I didn't appeal because I didn't think it was my vehicle as it had the wrong VRN on it! Is this correct and do I have no recourse to appeal? Furthermore, is it legal for them to change the VRN they recorded on the PCN to my vehicle's (obviously they must have looked at the photos, realised their mistake and amended the PCN to find my address)?

 

Thanks for any help!

 

Matt

[crem]

I am presuming you are talking about an official council issued PCN here?

 

No it is not legal for them to change the VRM recorded on the PCN by looking at the photos. They know that but I guess they are hoping you don't know and will just pay up. Reply to the NtO marking the boxes for "the contravention did not occur" and "there has been procedural impropriatey" and perhaps even "I have never owned the vehicle in question".

 

If you feel inclined you may wish to return a copy of the PCN clearly showing that the vehicle VRN shown does not match the NtO and is therefore not owned by you.

[mattjs]

Hi

 

It's not a council PCN but a private firm actually. So does that mean that legally I still do have the right of appeal?

 

Thanks!

[crem]

Hi

 

It's not a council PCN but a private firm actually. So does that mean that legally I still do have the right of appeal?

Thanks!

 

Better than that!

What it means is you have the right to totally ignore their tosh.

You have the right to put it in the bottom of a dark drawer and never look at it again.

You have the right to NOT waste your time or paper writing back to them

and most importantly

You have the right not to pay them a penny.

[mattjs]

Hi crem

 

Thanks for your reply. Forgive my ignorance but why is the fact they're a private firm any different and how come I can ignore them? I think they're a private firm, they're called Excel Parking and the NTO starts with "A PCN was issued to Vehicle registration xxxxxx which remains unpaid for allegedly breaching the car park terms and conditions in the Privately operated car park at xxxx street". They are threatening court proceedings and acruing costs so am obviously a bit worried!

 

Thanks again for your help

[Jamberson]

Forgive my ignorance but why is the fact they're a private firm any different and how come I can ignore them?

 

Because councils have legal authority to enforce parking and enforce payment. Private firms do not. Therefore, all a private firm can do is ask you for some of your money, and you can say no if you want.

 

They are threatening court proceedings and acruing costs so am obviously a bit worried!

 

That's how they persuade people to pay.

 

My advice: keep your money in your bank account. If they want it, let them sue you. They won't because they have no right to your money. Ignore them, but expect more letters, each designed to scare you a little bit more.

[mattjs]

Hi

 

I never knew that! So even if everything was correct and all the PCN details were correct, they still have no legal authority to enforce parking? If they did take one to small claims court (hypothetically where they had proof someone was parked in contravention to their 'codes') would they likely lose? Just out of a matter of interest would this be the same for say a privately operated NCP car park and would your advice to ignore a PCN issued by them be the same?

 

Thanks!

[Jamberson]

They have no legal authority to impose a penalty on you for breaching the rules. No-one does exept the powers that be - councils, police, courts - but no private firm or individual. NCP have no special law of their own - they are the same. (Be sure it's issued by them alone, and not on behalf of a local authority though.)

 

If they hypothetically took you to court for non-payment, they would have no case and the court would throw it out. They could take you to court for breach of contract, but could only sue you for financial losses they incurred as a result of your breach, which I guess is nothing. Maybe they could sue you for the cost of the parking space if you hadn't paid if they could convince a judge you'd deprived them of business they would otherwise have had - so their losses are £1 or £2 maybe?

 

Read some other threads on this forum - you'll soon see.

[mattjs]

Hi,

 

I am having a read of some of the stickies in the forum and am finding it very interesting! Just out of interest (and probably my last question because a lot of my questions seem to have been covered elsewhere!) but does the fact that I wasn't the driver (and I definitely wasn't) make any difference also?

 

Thanks

[crem]

does the fact that I wasn't the driver (and I definitely wasn't) make any difference also?

 

Thanks

 

Yes it does. Their alledged contract was with the driver of the car at the time who, presumably, was supposed to have read the terms of parking and chose to park there in breach of them. They are now writing to you as the Registered Keeper, suggesting you are responsible for this "breach of contract", which of course you are not.

 

Again, they are trying to make you believe they have the same powers as the police and councils where it is written into legislation that the RK is responsible for parking PCNs

 

Notice they use terms that result in the same abbreviations;

 

Council = Penalty Charge Notice = PCN

PPC......= Parking Charge Notice = PCN

 

Council = Notice to Owner = NtO (because that is an official term they must use)

PPC.... = Notice to Owner = NtO (because for no other reason than you will think it is like the council!)