Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: CurtLemmington on February 22, 2024, 05:40:11 pm
-
Toned it down slightly but not much
-
Great news. Well done.
Did you submit the 'meek and mild' or the 'Mr Angry from Purley' response?
-
All three PCN's have been cancelled! Thank you all so much for your help. Absolute Heroes!
-
Individual appeal / complaints have been submitted.
Thanks again for all your help - I will keep the thread updated when I hear anything.
-
Referencing the fact that you are aware that the car park is not on relevant land for the purposes of PoFA is not being aggressive. It is highlighting that you are not low hanging fruit on the gullible tree.
You have been aggressively invoiced for £300 by an unregulated private parking company, for what? They have obtained your personal data from the DVLA knowing that they cannot hold you liable as the keeper in the hope that you either dob yourself in the mire by deliberately or inadvertently revealing yourself to also be the driver when there is absolutely no legal requirement for you to do so.
You really need to be aware of how this scam (Hansard) works. As long as you are aware that you are not liable for the alleged debt, you can be as aggressive as you like. Personally, I am very aggressive when it comes to ex-clamper thugs trying to extort my hard earned cash and I take full advantage of all the breaches of contract that the scammers try to use.
If I was in your situation, I would be writing the following:
I am the registered keeper. Your NtK is for an alleged breach of contract on land that is under statutory control making it impossible to hold the keeper liable. NCP have no hope at POPLA or in court, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
NCP cannot hold a registered keeper liable. As a matter of fact and law, NCP (as a longstanding BPA Parking operator) will be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because this is not 'relevant land'. If Greater Anglia wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely, but not only is that not pleaded, it is also not legally possible because NCP is not the Station owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never attempts to be a penalty. It is created for NCP’s own profit (as opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and NCP has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed to have been, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
As I only ever received the Final Reminder letter on 22nd February 2024, I have therefore submitted a Subject Access Request to receive a copy of the original NtK to which I await a response. In the meantime I would suggest that you refer to the BPA CoP paragraph 23.8 and reissue the original NtK and start the clock running again at which point I will submit an appeal and if rejected, you will be required to provide me with a POPLA code where we both know an appeal by the keeper will be upheld.
I advise you to consider this correspondence as an official complaint, not an appeal and, as such, requires a response within the required timescale that can be escalated to the BPA if necessary.
You should respond to each NtK separately.
-
Sorry I don't know how to do the quotes in my reply!
My response is adequate refers to my revised appeal including reference to the Non-Relevant Land or the one earlier in the thread? I suspect my latest wording - I will submit today and keep you all updated. Really appreciated.
Thank you for the info also re: credit score.
Thanks @DWMB2 - very much noted.
-
I am looking to move house this year
If/when you do move, if this matter is unresolved, you must inform the parking company of your new address.
-
Your response is adequate.
You cannot affect your credit score, even if it went to court and you lost the claim and received a CCJ. As long as a CCJ is paid in full within 30 days, it is expunged from your record as though it was never there in the first place.
Receiving an LoC or a claim has no effect on your credit record at all. This is a civil matter and unless you actually lose a claim in court and don't pay the order within 30 days of the CCJ, there is no record of it.
Likewise, if you do get a CCJ which is has been filed and you successfully get it set aside, it will be completely expunged from your record.
What you don't want is to get a CCJ and then pay it later than 30 days as then it remains on your record for 6 years but marked as "satisfied". Whilst maybe not quite as bad was an unsatisfied CCJ, it will still severely affect your ability to obtain credit and will affect just about everything including inflated insurance premiums.
-
Thank you @b789. I am not necessarily reluctant to accept it is railway land - I am in fact certain of it based on the information I have obtained and you have helpfully provided. I am concerned if I include the reference to it being non relevant land it comes off as too aggressive? They would then take an aggressive stance back - perhaps I am overthinking this.
My appeal would therefore read:
"I, as registered keeper of XX, did not receive any initial letters before the Final Reminder letters were received on 22nd February 2024. I have therefore submitted a Subject Access Request to receive a copy of the original Notice to Keeper letters to which I await a response.
As your allegation of a breach of terms occurred on land subject to statutory control by bylaws, it is not relevant land for the purposes of the Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore there can be no keeper liability."
Would very much appreciate thoughts on this.
As a side note, and sorry for going out of scope here, would receiving a LoC impact my credit score? I am looking to move house this year and don't particularly want anything to materially affect my mortgage application.
-
I would also suggest that you write to your MP, outlining the failures of NCP. I would also highlight the fact that NCP and Greater Anglia (Abellio East Anglia Limited) (AGA) have no signs at the location that indicate that the railway asset land is covered by bylaws. I’m sure there’s some breach of a rule in there. I would also copy in the head of AGA.
-
You need to appeal each PCN separately. What you have suggested writing is fine. However, I doubt they will “reset the clock”.
You must remember that you are dealing with a, mostly, automated money making machine. Any human involvement/intervention is likely to be by someone who is intellectually malnourished and incapable of understanding the minutiae of your arguments.
Regarding the status of the location, you seem reluctant to accept that it is National Rail railway asset, leased by the TOC, Abelio Greater Anglia and operated on a commercial basis by NCP. None of that detracts from the fact that, as a railway asset, it is covered by bylaws, whether there are signs there or not.
It is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA and, as such, only the driver can be liable for any alleged breach of contract. Keep that in mind whether they accept your allegation that they never sent the original NtKs.
Consider your correspondence as a complaint rather than an appeal. The reason for that is, should they not reset the clock which would allow you to appeal to POPLA, you are then in a position to complain to the BPA regarding their breach of rule 23.8 of the current BPA CoP.
Should none of the above work, you are then in the limbo state of waiting to see if they try to make a claim. You would receive a flurry of debt collector letters which you can safely ignore. If/when they send you an LoC which you can respond to, robustly, you will again be in a position to argue that you cannot be liable as the keeper and to bring on the claim.
Whilst they may never get to this stage, there is still the possibility, because of their intellectual malnourishment, that they will issue a claim in their greedy hope that you are gullible enough to capitulate and pay up. Defending any claim robustly is very likely to lead to a discontinuation because they really don’t want a judge to spank them in court.
-
My understanding therefore is they are likely to then 'reset the clock' on these parking charge notices?
They might, but personally I'd be very surprised if they did. They'll probably just say the notices were sent, and that their deadline for appeals has passed.
-
Many thanks all for your continued support in this.
I have now submitted an SAR (just requesting they send all correspondence they have on me as registered keeper and of the car) and feel it is best to submit my appeal today / tomorrow for the Parking Charge Notices along the lines of:
"I, as registered keeper of XX, did not receive any initial letters before the Final Reminder letters were received on 22nd February 2024. I have therefore submitted a Subject Access Request to receive a copy of the original Notice to Keeper letters. I will be able to write again once these are received and reviewed."
My understanding therefore is they are likely to then 'reset the clock' on these parking charge notices? Please do say if this is a bad idea!
Then in the background I can continue the investigation around the ownership of the land albeit I feel it is Railway land as per the land reg but my knowledge doesn't then extend to an understanding around relevant vs non-relevant land other than what has kindly been posted on this thread. There appears to still be slight disagreements on the best approach so hopefully the above appeal will give more time?
Many thanks
-
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Which isn't the issue. Prima facie the Ts and Cs and the PCN refer to contract terms and terminology. It's open to the OP to assert the opposite but without any evidence it wouldn't carry weight or the day IMO.
I suggest the OP submits a FoI request to the Dept. for Tpt and asks.
-
I have downloaded the Title Register for the land.
The Freeholder of the Land is Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd which I believe Network Rail Ltd is the Ultimate Parent Company.
Abellio East Anglia Limited are the leaseholders having taken a circa 94 year lease on the land
-
Nothing on these signs suggests that the site is subject to Railway Bylaws.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
-
The nearest is Item 8 on the Terms and Conditions of Parking, which is clearly a general notice used by NCP to cover sites operated under contract, traffic orders and bylaws, which states that if sites are operated under traffic orders or bylaws then 'notices [to this effect] will be displayed in the car park'.
That has never stopped NCP from operating under a commercial agreement with the TOC. If you really need definitive proof, you can always pay a few £ to the Land Registry. A search for "Cambridge North" comes up with the station itself and 3 other "land at Cambridge North Station". The post code is CB4 0AE
https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/search/map-search/find-by-address
I'd still wager that the land is railway asset leased to Greater Anglia and as such, covered by bylaws. Also, as already mentioned, NCP have previously stated in an appeal at this location, Cambridge North Station Car Park, that they do not rely on PoFA. This is what NCP stated:
On Railway Land managed by NCP, we currently enforce under contract law. We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this. Therefore timescales defined in POFA are not required to be met but there is an expectation that if an operator does not make use of Keeper Liability provisions, they are expected to adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and contractual requirements to issue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no later than 7 months after the parking event.
-
Nothing on these signs suggests that the site is subject to Railway Bylaws.
The nearest is Item 8 on the Terms and Conditions of Parking, which is clearly a general notice used by NCP to cover sites operated under contract, traffic orders and bylaws, which states that if sites are operated under traffic orders or bylaws then 'notices [to this effect] will be displayed in the car park'.
As far as we know, there aren't such notices.
The evidence that the site is subject to contract terms seems overwhelming.
-
I now attach photos of the signage. There was quite a lot of signage albeit mostly repetition!
I can only upload four photos at a time so think I have captured them all but can send over zoomed in ones if needed.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you both for your detailed responses which is putting me a bit at ease! Very kind.
I will take photos of the signage tomorrow and post on here. I would be very grateful to agree the strategy and wording along with the SAR.
-
Respectfully, whilst @H C Andersen is a trained lawyer and can apply his expert legal knowledge, in laymen's terms, you have been issued three "Parking" Charge Notices.
How do we know this? Because it says so on the reminders and from research on the InterWeb, it is known that Cambridge North car park is owned by the train operating company (TOC) Greater Anglia (GA). The land where the car park is located is a railway asset and covered by railway bylaws. NCP is contracted by GA to operate and manage the car park. NCP has stated, on record elsewhere, that they enforce the terms and conditions at the car park under contract law, not railway bylaw and they do not and cannot rely on PoFA.
Based on the above, NCP issue "Parking" Charge Notices not "Penalty" Charge Notices. NCP do not and cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. The only way the keeper can be liable is if the keeper admits to also being the driver. There is no obligation in civil law for the keeper to identify the driver and no inference can be made.
NCP do not know the identity of the driver unless they have been told who it was by the keeper. If the keeper refuses the "invitation" to name the driver, NCP have nowhere else to turn.
Where this could become interesting, is if NCP insist on pursuing the keeper after their refusal of the invitation to identify the driver. In a simple, initial appeal as the keeper, refusing their invitation to identify the driver, NCP "should" throw in the towel. However, they don't tend to do so and hope that the keeper is low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will eventually capitulate and pay up when things escalate.
This is when your initial appeal is rejected and you receive a POPLA code (which NCP pay £30+ for) and you appeal to POPLA, a supposedly "independent" appeal service, where an assessor will review your appeal. The assessors are not lawyers but do have some legal training. To what standard, we don't know. They will only assess whether the points you raise are enough to invalidate the issue of the PCN on the basis of compliance with the BPA CoP and legalities such as compliance with PoFA. Unfortunately, there have been quite a few instances where the assessor has misunderstood how to apply PoFA and retraining has been necessary.
In theory, with the extra training provided to the assessors in understanding PoFA, they now (mostly) know that a NtK issued for parking on land covered by bylaws, the PPC cannot hold the keeper liable for the charge. Only the driver can be liable and if the keeper has declined the invitation to identify the driver, the assessor will find in favour of the appellant and that is then the end of the matter.
In the now, somewhat rare instance, where an assessor gets it wrong regarding PoFA and denies the appeal, it does not really matter. You can complain to POPLA and they can fully agree that their assessor got it wrong but they cannot reverse a the decision. Not to worry... a POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant and would have no bearing on any future court claim should the PPC be reckless enough to pursue it that far.
In this instance, the victim would have to weather some months of useless debt collector letters. These debt collectors work on a no-win no-fee basis and have no power to do anything, no matter how scary they make their correspondence sound. As already mentioned, they are looking for the low hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will now become scared at the added £60-£70 to the original £100 charge and all the mention of "CCJs" and "bailiffs" and capitulate.
IF the PPC are really intellectually malnourished, they may engage (or do it themselves) a firm of roboclaim solicitors who will send the victim a Letter of Claim (LoC) giving the potential defendant 30 days to pay or face the possibility of a claim without further notice. If things ever got this far (and they do with a few seriously intellectually malnourished PPCs and their roboclaim solicitors) you DO want them to issue a claim. A robustly defended claim highlighting the problem with the defendant not being liable as the keeper, will be an important fact that a district judge must take into consideration.
Thankfully, only a few intellectually malnourished roboclaim firms press on this far and even then, they tend to discontinue before it ever gets in front of a judge.
-
OP, the letters are extra-procedural and have NO effect, so pl don't concern yourself.
The law in these matters is simple:
1. The land is relevant land and compliant NTKs were issued:
Once the contractual period for payment(shown on the signs at the site) and the arbitrary period for making 'appeals' have passed then if they wish to pursue the keeper for alleged debts arising under drivers'* breaches of contract then they must engage with the procedures which apply to the Administration of Justice i.e. issue a letter of claim and then sue you (or the drivers, if known) in court.
There is a legal principle called mitigating one's losses which applies here. It means that they CANNOT inflate their claim by indulging in sending extra-procedural letters or engaging so-called debt collectors at YOUR expense. If they want to do this, it's at THEIR expense.
This has NOTHING to do with parking law, procedures or whatever, these are general principles which apply to civil claims.
2. It's not relevant land. In which case their claims can only be pursued under the bylaws, and again they may not inflate the penalties which apply.
In short, submit the SAR. You should play a straight bat which IMO means disregarding what is alleged in the 'reminders' because they are NOT NTKs. They may or may not state what's in the NTKs, but this is guesswork. They have NO part to play procedurally and so you NEED the originals before you engage with them regarding the charges.
As written before, a SAR is not a 'parking' process, it's data protection.
*- they don't know how many drivers are involved.
**- the Railway Bylaws https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf
Note that these were not made by the railway operator, they were made by the Strategic Railway Authority and ratified by the Dept. for Tpt, nowt to do specifically with any particular operator.
-
Yes that is a good point. I just don't want anything to escalate further whilst I send and wait for the SAR? The letters state I have until the 29th Feb to pay the charge otherwise my details will be passed to their Debt Collection Agent to which I may incur further fees.
Or will sending the SAR likely reset the whole process?
-
Should I also mention in this Appeal that no original NTKs were sent?Whilst I note the chances of 3 notices going missing seeming somewhat slim, I'd still be reluctant to accuse them of not sending the notices without much evidence of the same (beyond the fact you didn't receive them).
Given you've already missed their arbitrary appeal deadline, is there perhaps value in waiting until hearing back from your SAR before sending any challenge?
-
Again - thank you for your comments.
I agree in that I don't think they ever sent initial NtKs. I will take photographs of the signage on Monday and post on here.
It seems I need to get the ball rolling in tandem (once we understand whether the land is relevant land or not?);
1. SAR for the original NtKs to NCP
2. Appeal the charges on the basis of what @b789 has suggested;
I appeal as keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so as there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver (as opposed, for example, to being a passenger) on any particular occasion, you are unable to pursue me as the driver.
As your allegation of a breach of terms occurred on land subject to statutory control by bylaws, it is not relevant land for the purposes of the Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore there can be no keeper liability.
Should I also mention in this Appeal that no original NTKs were sent? and that all three final reminders were issued on the same day? I feel this should be mentioned as this would then perhaps re-set the clock?
-
The point of complaining, rather than appealing to NCP is rule 23.8 in the current BPA CoP where is states that:
You must have a process for considering appeals received outside of the normal 28-day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes – where the addressee only discovers and can show that a parking charge notice has been issued in their name after the 28-day period the period must restart and any enforcement, excluding court action, must be paused.
You cannot complain to the BPA until a complaint to the operator has been concluded. It is almost impossible for a keeper to show that a PCN has been issued after the 28 day period if they never received it in the first place. The normal response from operators is to tell the keeper to "prove it". As that is not possible and a response of "show evidence you sent it" cannot be proved (unless they have a certificate of posting) then once the complaint is rejected, the keeper can then initiate a complaint to the BPA and request that they instruct their member to re-issue the PCN and start the clock again.
I find it incredulous that no less than three NtKs were never received. One maybe. Three? On the balance of probabilities, they were never sent. The fact that all three reminders were sent on the same day suggests that they discovered their "mistake" and took action to send the reminders without admitting their "error", possibly also content that their victim will just pay the full charge as the bribe discount period had expired.
-
The reminders refer to Parking charge, hence why the driver who regularly visits should post photos. IMO, any claim that the land is subject to Railway Bylaws should be bolstered by THEIR signs, not hearsay from third parties.
I'm not saying it is or it is not. The OP can get evidence, so what's stopping them?
And the OP has no grounds to complain to NCP based upon their assumption that the PCNs weren't sent. Frankly, this flies in the face of what are regular occurrences here: mail does go missing and the OP has NO basis at present for thinking otherwise. For all they or we know, any complaint should go to the Royal Mail.
So OP, the straight bat approach is:
Submit a SAR to the data protection officer of NCP. Absolutely standard stuff which is not based in parking regs but is a general data protection provision.
https://www.ncp.co.uk/help-centre/website-terms-and-conditions/data-protection-policy/
Don't complain or moan, IMO it's a waste of energy. Simply ask.
And what's your exposure while this parallel strand of action is being followed? None IMO. But why not just do the simple and straightforward thing of writing to NCP (whether email or whatever), say you've just received their reminders, tell them you had no prior notice of these matters and therefore you have a made a Subject Access Request to their DPO and will write again when this information is received.
-
The PCN reminders state that these are “Parking” Charge Notices, not “Penalty” notices. Whilst NCP could, if contractually allowed, issue Penalty notices on behalf of the TOC, they cannot take the motorist to court. It would be a criminal matter that only the TOC could bring and it would be handled in a magistrate court, not a civil (county) court. Should such a prosecution be successful, the proceeds of the fine would go to the treasury and not the TOC.
Also, it would be easy to time out a Penalty Charge Notice as a summons would have to be issued within 6 months of the date of the offence.
This is the reason that NCP are contracted by the TOC to issue “Parking” Charge Notices under civil law even though the land is covered by railway bylaws, which means that, depending on the contract, the TOC can receive revenue from any PCNs or they get the services of NCP free or at a reduced cost with NCP relying on the income from the PCNs.
It could also be argued that the DVLA has breached the keepers UK GDPR by releasing the keepers data without reasonable cause. NCP can never hold the keeper liable, unless they have admitted to being the driver, because they are operating on land covered by bylaws and therefore not relevant land. As NCP is operating on non-relevant land, and they cannot legally hold the keeper liable, it raises questions about the lawful basis for the DVLA to disclose the keeper's data to that company.
As NCP cannot establish a legal claim against the keeper and there is no reasonable cause for the DVLA to disclose the keeper's data to them, the processing of the keeper's data by the DVLA should be considered a breach of the UK GDPR.
-
You would need to make a complaint to NCP rather than an appeal that you were never sent the original NtKs. They will deny of course but you then can complain to the BPA that according to their latest rules the operator should now resend the original NtKs and the clock should start running again.
Either way, you should be able to appeal on the basis that you are not liable as the keeper. It matters not that they have an ANPR photo of the driver. They still do not know the identity if that person.
After they reject your appeal you can then make a POPLA appeal on the same basis where it is invariably upheld.
As far as I’m concerned, I’ve never had anyone I’ve assisted in a PCN issue involving non relevant land pay a penny to the parking companies. They rely on the naivety or gullibility of their victims to pay up. Fighting this on the basis that the keeper cannot be liable for the charge and the drivers details have not been revealed wins every time, whether at POPLA or in a claim.
Anyone knowing this and paying them is, as far as I am concerned, a fool and their money. The PPCs rely on consumers lack of education in matters of civil law.
The choice, however, is yours.
-
Thank you for all your help.
I don't think I could handle the anxiety of waiting 6 years to see if they would take me to court or not.
One of the PCNs does have a clear picture of the Driver entering the car park - assume this is then used in evidence when it does go to court to prove who the driver was?
I am concerned what my risks are if I do ignore this on the basis they do not know who the driver is?
-
Sending a Subject Access Request will get you a copy of the original notice(s). This will confirm if they're still issuing contractual charges or trying a bylawys breach.
Photos of the signage would be useful as suggested. If the driver is a frequent visitor this shouldn't be an issue.
Once you've gathered all the facts I'd recommend a challenge rather than waiting for them to do anything - set out your stall. But let's confirm the details first.
-
In which case you can choose to pay the PCNs or challenge them based on the fact that they have no idea who the driver was and you are only the RK and cannot be liable for them as such.
At this stage all you can do is wait and see if they take you to court within 6 years of the contravention date.
-
The driver forgot to pay for the days where a PCN has been sent out. No excuse there.
Issue is it has taken them over 3 months to send out a PCN which is set out as a final reminder. No ability to pay a reduced early rate was offered.
-
If there is objective evidence, as there could be with photos, then these should be taken and posted within the thread.
We know:
The driver uses the car park regularly;
They have a smart phone.
-
The car park at Cambridge North is railway land owned by the TOC and is covered by bylaws.
This is an actual statement from NCP in response to an appeal against a PCN issued at this station a few years ago:
On Railway Land managed by NCP, we currently enforce under contract law. We are not allowed to use the provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) & Keeper Liability as Railway Land is exempt from this. Therefore timescales defined in POFA are not required to be met but there is an expectation that if an operator does not make use of Keeper Liability provisions, they are expected to adhere to the DVLA’s guidelines and contractual requirements to issue the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) no later than 7 months after the parking event.
So, without knowing the identity of the driver, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
-
The driver regularly parks, at Cambridge North Station
Then they can take photos of the signs so that we can see whether car parking is subject to railway bylaws or whether it's contractual. At present we do not know. The 'reminder letters' (I won't call them 'notices' because this misleadingly imbues them with a status of which they are unworthy) are just letters, they do not form part of any regulatory procedure.
OP, where did the driver park on the intervening days and did they pay on those days? If so, and I like to get these issues into focus, they had no reason to not pay on the days in question, particularly as the website states:
'Did you know, using gaparking.co.uk enables you to pay for your parking up to 24 hours after you have left the car park,'.
https://www.ncp.co.uk/find-a-car-park/car-parks/cambridge-north-ga/
-
OK I won't send and will await for something more suitable. - Thank you.
Yes my address on the V5C log book is correct and was correct at the time of the offences.
I have no idea why I wasnt sent anything prior to the Final Reminder letters. I haven't moved address in years nor been on extended leave where I may have missed the post.
I just recall going on the gaparking website which didnt have my details registered as parking there for the day so then went on the 'pay unpaid charges' and again nothing was appearing.
-
Please don’t send that. I or someone else will come back with something a bit more suitable.
Why do you think you did not receive the original Notice to Keeper (NtK)?
You haven’t answered the question about the address on your V5C logbook. Is it your correct address and if so, was it correct at the time of the alleged contraventions back around October last year?
Also, what is your recollection of attempts to make the payment by app at the time? Do you recall any instances where payment could not be completed? If so, what did you do?
In the meantime, you may want to start familiarising yourself with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-compliance-monitoring
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
-
Thanks again for your reply. I would very much appreciate your opinion on the following draft Appeal letter to NCP:
Dear Sirs,
As DVLA Keeper on the vehicle I have been sent 3 PCNs
GA0018XXXX
GA0018XXXX
GA0018XXXX
I will submit three appeal cases but reference they are linked.
I appeal, as Keeper, on the grounds that I, as Keeper, received Final Reminder letters on 22 February 2024 which is 5 working days after the date of sending the notice of 15th February 2024. The letter deems to have been given on the second working day after the date of sending (15th February 2024).
I, as Keeper, had not received any correspondence before these Final Reminder PCNs which state 'To Date you have not complied with our request for you to supply the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the date of incident, or to pay the outstanding amount, or to make a representation against the PCN'
The original discounted offer has expired, which I, as keeper, was never made aware of.
The fines are disproportionate compared to the parking charges and three fines received on the same day for 3 alleged offences 3 months ago is unreasonable. The PCN for this case relates to a date of incident of [31st October 2023 which is 3 months and 15 days] before the date of sending the first PCN, I as keeper had received.
As your allegation of a breach of terms occurred on land subject to statutory control by bylaws, it is not relevant land for the purposes of the Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore there can be no keeper liability.
I hope we can agree a reasonable resolve.
Kind regards,
-
Thank you very much for your advice here.
I will try that appeal to the NCP initially. The frustration is they have only sent final reminder letters and all three at once!
How are they likely to respond? Do they respond quickly either way - or am I going to be kept in this state of anxiety!?
The letters are scary but I am guessing that is the point!
-
Whatever you do, do not reveal the identity of the driver. The location is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA which means that only the driver can be liable for the charges. You, as the keeper of the vehicle are a separate entity in law and because the PCNs are not able to rely on PoFA, you cannot be liable for them.
You are probably too late at this stage to do anything except wait for them to send you a Letter of Claim (LoC) and eventually a court claim. You can safely ignore anything else they send to you such as reminders and anything form their chosen debt collectors. No matter how scary those letters may seem, they are safe to ignore. You must not ignore an LoC or court claim.
I believe there was an issue last year when NCP updated their app but failed to notify existing users that they needed to delete the original app and download a new version. Anyone using the old app after whatever cut off date they had, ended up receiving PCNs. Of course, they will not admit to this but it is a fact.
You may want to check the address on your V5C logbook to make sure your current address is shown correctly on it. If you moved at any time and forgot to update it, it could be one of the reasons you did not receive the original NtKs. Many people update their drivers licence but fail to update the V5C. Whilst both are handled by the DVLA, they are not connected in any way.
If the V5C address is not up to date, you must get it updated asap. However, you must also instruct the DPO at NCP to rectify your data with your current address for service and for them to erase the old address.
You should also try, in any case, an appeal to NCP (although they may refuse to accept one) as the keeper along these lines for each PCN:
I appeal as keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so as there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver (as opposed, for example, to being a passenger) on any particular occasion, you are unable to pursue me as the driver.
As your allegation of a breach of terms occurred on land subject to statutory control by bylaws, it is not relevant land for the purposes of the Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and therefore there can be no keeper liability.
-
Hi All,
Any help would be appreciated.
The driver regularly parks, at Cambridge North Station which is an NCP run car park. It only uses ANPR and online / app based tickets. The driver has heard that the Auto Pay isn't reliable so tend to pay on the day when they leave. This is because they often don’t know how long they are going to be there - sometimes overnight.
I have just received (22nd Feb) three Final PCN letters with the same letter date (saying date of sending this notice 15th Feb) but for incidents dating 7th November, 16th November and 31st October. All some time ago! They are Final Reminder letters as it claims I have failed to comply with their request to supply the name and address of the driver of the vehicle on the date of the incident. It says the original discounted offer has expired and therefore required to pay the full amount still outstanding of £100! Each letter has photo evidence of the cars number plate at the arrival and departure times.
The issue is these are the first letters I have received to any of these incidents. They driver recalls trying to pay on their app the unpaid parking charge but did not contain details of the parking charges.
My question is therefore whether I have any grounds to appeal based on them taking so long to serve the PCN but also all three at once? Seems unreasonable? They have not sent any prior letters also.
Any advice would be very much appreciated
Many thanks in advance
Seb
[attachment deleted by admin]