carrying over post from pepipoo: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149253&st=20
It would be wise to re-post the salient details and images from your PePiPoo thread here - this site was set up because there's a credible risk that PePiPoo will go offline permanently in a few months' time.
- How can I determine if CPM has complied with Pofa and hold the keeper liable? they assert:
Please be advised that the parking charge notice was issued as a breach of contract occurred. The vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver became liable for a Parking Charge Notice and therefore The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 is irrelevant and does not apply.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=149253&view=findpost&p=1785856
Their statement is nonsense - PoFA is only 'irrelevant' if they know who the driver is - if they're seeking to hold the registered keeper liable they need to comply with it. Looking at their notice, I'd argue it doesn't comply - for starters, they've not provided the warning required by 9(2)(f):
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
Their notice doesn't mention the part in (ii), it just says if the amount remains unpaid they will have the right to recover from the driver. That being said, it's not a particularly strong defence point on its own - although they arguably shouldn't, we've seen cases where judges have either failed to understand the requirements of PoFA, or accept 'broad compliance', and overlook what they see as technical/minor errors like that (although I'd argue it's not necessarily minor, keeper vs driver can be an important distinction).
as the prev. RK, I have sold the car and have expatriated (for at-least a couple of years)* In the members' experience, would it be reasonable to expect a PPC (CPM) to give up because of this, or would they still pursue (based on response to q1, i.e. RK liability)?
*Update to HMRC on the changed tax status is pending but will be done shortly, but inevitably some form of assets will remain in the UK.
UK Car Park Management can be a litigious bunch, so you should work on the assumption they will continue to pursue you. Do you have a UK address at which you can be contacted, or are you now permanently abroad? If the address to which the notices were sent is no longer one at which you can be contacted, you should provide them with your updated address for service. If that is a foreign address, then as well as emailing their Data Protection Officer (DPO), it could be wise to send them a letter by post from said address (perhaps alongside a redacted bill/other document verifying the new address). There's obviously a small cost to doing this, but helps overcome any scepticism CPM might hold about the accuracy of the information.
I haven't trawled the PePiPoo thread in great detail yet, but I note from the dates that quite some time has elapsed between the issue of the original notice and now - I presume you chose not to bother with an appeal to the IAS (I wouldn't blame you)? If so, there aren't any further appeal stages, it's a case of waiting to see if they decide to go to court.