DWMB2 -- Good call, the address on the V5 was indeed wrong! Not sure how that one happened.Get that changed asap if you haven't already. I always mention it when people raise issues with their address, as more often than not it turns out to be a V5C issue - we've seen plenty of cases on all 3 parts of the forum (private parking, council and criminal) go awry due to documents being sent to the wrong address!
Dear Smart Parking Ltd,
We have received your Parking Charge Notice (notice number XXXXXXXXXX) for the vehicle XXXXXXX which you allege has incurred a parking charge at Newspaper House, Blackburn.
Under Schedule 4, paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, your notice does not fall under the specified conditions for a Notice to Keeper, most notably as the date of issue (10 September) does not fall within the relevant period of 14 days from the alleged date of contravention (22 August).
Therefore, we are under no obligation to disclose driver details or settle the alleged charge. We are unable to help you further in this matter and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. Please note that if you wish to reject this appeal you must issue a POPLA code.
Regards,
We are the registered Keeper of the vehicle and dispute your parking charge. Since Smart Parking does not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, there is no legal basis to hold the Keeper liable for this charge.
As this PCN is addressed to a company, it should be evident that the company cannot possibly be the driver. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The Keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
Additionally, Smart Parking lack a valid contract with the landowner, undermining your authority to issue this charge. Smart have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
To be fair they probably didn't need to go through the DVLAJust because a vehicle bears a company logo does not mean that company is the registered keeper. They must contact DVLA for keeper details each time they issue a charge.
If you wanted to keep it short and sweet, you could send something along the lines of this
I would strongly recommend checking the V5C documentWill do. To be fair they probably didn't need to go through the DVLA as the business name is written in very large letters on the vehicle ;D
Compliance with PoFA is not mandatory, and so them not sticking to the deadlines it mandates if they want to recover from the keeper does not necessarily constitute a breach of your data protection rights. Edit: also just clocked the recipient of the notice is a business, who are not generally data subjects in the same way as individualsYeah, makes sense.
Is the Notice to Keeper (NtK) addressed to the "company" or your father as an individual?It's addressed to the limited company (presumably as the registered keeper).
I wouldn't even go into as much detail. You can almost guarantee that Smart don't have a valid contract that flows from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs.Yeah, I gathered as much reading through other posts on here and MSE in the past... a lot easier to get rid of it just via PoFA non-compliance though :)
The polite appeal above is adequate. Personally I prefer the shorter version which covers the same points, has always worked and gives of the aroma of disdain for the unregulated private parking company.Noted!
Is the Notice to Keeper (NtK) addressed to the "company" or your father as an individual?If the latter, simply change any references to 'our'/'we' etc. to 'I'/'the keeper'.
aroma of disdainI always wondered why your range of perfumes never quite took off... ;D
also to an incorrect addressSmart will have acquired the keeper details from DVLA - whilst this could be an error on Smart's part, I would strongly recommend checking the V5C document for the vehicle, and making sure the address is correct. The last thing you want is for DVLA to have the wrong address.
Furthermore, I am concerned that pursuant to sub-paragraph 11(1)(b) (as specified in sub-paragraph 4(2)(a)), the application for our details as keeper were not made within the relevant 14-day period due to the listed issuance date, and I will be raising an official complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office over this matter.Compliance with PoFA is not mandatory, and so them not sticking to the deadlines it mandates if they want to recover from the keeper does not necessarily constitute a breach of your data protection rights. Edit: also just clocked the recipient of the notice is a business, who are not generally data subjects in the same way as individuals
Dear Smart Parking Ltd,
x Ltd ("we"; "us"; "our") recently received a "parking charge notice" from Smart Parking Ltd ("you"; "your"), notice number x, relating to the vehicle x of which we are a keeper.
The validity of this charge notwithstanding, you have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
I draw your attention to Schedule 4 of the Act.
A "notice to driver" was not provided before the vehicle was removed from the relevant land (sub-paragraph 7(4)(a), thus under paragraph 6 you must provide a "notice to keeper" in accordance with paragraph 9 in order to claim rights to recover charges from us under paragraph 4(2)(a)
You have not provided a "notice to keeper" in accordance with the requirements set out in paragraph 9, assuming your vague correspondence is intended to be interpreted as such:
- Your notice does not inform us that the driver is required to pay the parking charges (required by sub-paragraph 9(2)(b)), only stating the charge and offering various options.
- Your notice does not state that you do not know the name and a current address for the driver (required by sub-paragraph 9(2)(e)).
- Your notice does not clearly warn that if the charge remains unpaid and you do not know the name and current address of the driver, that you have the right to recover the charge from us, as the keeper (required by sub-paragraph 9(2)(f)).
- Your notice does not clearly relate to a single period of parking (required by sub-paragraph 9(3)) as you have not shown that the vehicle did not exit and re-enter the location between the claimed arrival and departure times.
- Your notice was not sent by post to a current address for service for the keeper (required by sub-paragraph 9(4)(b)) as the given address uses the incorrect postcode "x".
- Your notice was not sent by post within the relevant period of 14 days beginning on the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended (required by sub-paragraph 9(5)). This is clearly demonstrated by the issuance date of 10th September which is 19 days after the specified period ending on 22nd August.
- Your notice cannot be presumed to have been delivered on the second working day after it was posted (i.e. 12th September) as given in sub-paragraph 9(6) due to the previously-mentioned incorrect address given; the date of delivery (thus notice given to ourselves) was in fact 27 September.
Furthermore, I am concerned that pursuant to sub-paragraph 11(1)(b) (as specified in sub-paragraph 4(2)(a)), the application for our details as keeper were not made within the relevant 14-day period due to the listed issuance date, and I will be raising an official complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office over this matter.
In conclusion, as you have not fulfilled the requirements set out in the Act, we will not be held liable for any charges, and we are under no obligation to provide you with any further details. Further correspondence regarding this matter will discarded.
Regards,
[myself]
x Ltd