I don't have any real idea of how the question gets settled and how broad an answer is obtained.At any rate I'll suggest that any further discussion of the broader issue might be better placed in the Flame Pit, unless the OP in this case is planning on taking any further action (which, given the charges he had been sent have been cancelled, I'd be surprised if he is).
It seems to me entirely reasonable to submit a keeper request to DVLA for any vehicle left on my land. The process seems to allow this as reasonable cause. I can fill in a form and do this. The content, however, of invoices sent to keepers for events on non relevant land is a problem.
It would perhaps be a bit odd if the terms of the Kadoe contract prohibited this.
Surely accepting these appeals is an admission of the fact of law that NCP are not able to pursue keepers for these NtK's on non-relevant land, and therefore shouldn't be sending out these NtK's or contacting DVLA for the registered keeper's details in the first place?If you read the notice carefully, they don't actually say that you are liable as the keeper. The fact that they are unable to use the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act on non-relevant land does not prohibit them from contacting the keeper to send them a charge, it just means they cannot recover the charge from the keeper if he declines to tell them who was driving.
I am the registered keeper. Your NtK is for an alleged breach of contract on land under statutory control which means that I cannot be liable for the charge as the keeper. NCP have no hope of being successful at POPLA, 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 to hold a keeper liable because Cambridge North Station car park is not 'relevant land'. If Greater Anglia wanted to hold owners or keepers liable under Railway Bylaws, that would be within the landowner's gift and another matter entirely. However, 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 bylaws 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 the driver nor pursued as such under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency.
Despite the fact they cannot keep the registered keeper liable, curious to know if objective evidence in the form of an ANPR photo can be used by NCP to pursue the liable party here?How do you imagine they could do that? Even if I went up to you and took a photo and then went off, how do you think I can identify who you are? There is no magical database against which I or an unregulated private parking company can refer the picture to in order to identify who that is.
National Car Parks Ltd. have identified an issue with the automated despatch of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) letters with the PCN reference beginning with ‘GA’. This has resulted in the delay in the despatch of the letters informing customers of the contravention. Parking Charge Notices offer a period where a customer can settle the matter at a discounted rate (14 days from receipt of the letter). The issue has led to a number of letters arriving with the customer with the discounted offer period either already expired or expiring within a few days from receipt of the letter.
NCP would like to apologise for the confusion this has caused. We will ensure that all of our customers who have been impacted are given the opportunity to settle that matter or appeal as they feel appropriate. NCP will be writing to every customer that has had a notification issued over the last 4 weeks. We will be extending the discounted period for 3 weeks as from the date of the new letter.
NCP will be monitoring the situation closely and will be putting additional safe guards in place to rectify this one off issue.
Once again we would like to apologise for the upset that this has caused.
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.