Free Traffic Legal Advice

Updating on this case.

Another identical reminder about the charge was received a week or so ago. There was no change in the amount, nor anything else of note, so this was ignored just as the notices that came before it.

Today, a letter was received (body attached) informing that the collection agent will be instructing the client to begin legal proceedings.

I know the advice above was to wait for a Letter of Claim, but should anything be done in response to this preliminary missive?

In the letter, the refer to the following points as the grounds for taking legal action:

• Have you paid?
• Have you contacted us? (i)
• Did you unsuccessfully appeal a parking charge using the POPLA or IAS appeals systems? (ii)
• Evidence of the original parking charge
• [...] attempts to contact you (i)
• Existing case law

i) Obviously they have attempted to make contact, and no response has been sent on the advice of this forum.

ii) There were no appeals made through any mechanism/system. As a reminder, this is because the person driving on the day of the parking event lost the windscreen notice. By the time a notice was sent in the mail to the keeper, the first window for appeal had been missed, and the enforcer's website asserted that the same window applied for the Keeper and had as such been missed. The website therefore allowed no way of submitting the appeal. Moreover, attempts to appeal via BPA are rejected if no appeal has first been made to the parking company.

Just want to check, since a few weeks have passed since the last update, that the advice at this stage is still to wait.

Thanks!

Thank you. Noted.

Just so that I understand, are the following correct assumptions about the Letter of Claim?

1. It will be sent by the debt collector's legal representation?
2. It will be notice of legal action, potentially leading to a CCJ?

Yes. The NTK explicitly states that “you as the keeper also had the right to appeal during the 28 days following the NtD” (my paraphrasing, I’ll copy the precise language later.)

And then initiating the appeal online with the case number reiterates this.

The NTK has a section explaining appeals, in which it states that the appeals period was 28 days from the issuance of the NTD, and that since that period has lapsed, there is no longer any recourse to appeal.

This seems to make no sense, since the NTK exists to pursue the Keeper in the event that the driver does nor respond and cannot be identified. How is it valid to issue the Keeper with a charge, which they may well be completely unaware of prior to the receipt of the NTK, and give them no recourse to appeal?

In any case, visiting the website and entering the reference number returns the following:

Unfortunately you are unable to appeal this charge. At the time that the charge was incurred, a Notice to Driver may have been affixed to the vehicle or sent through the post. This offered the driver the ability to appeal within 28 days from its imposition. You also as the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle had the right to appeal within the 28 day period from the point of issue of the Notice to Keeper. Since we have received no further correspondence from you, payment is required within 14 days. If you consider there to be exceptional circumstances as to why you should be allowed to appeal outside of this period then you should send your reasons to us, in writing, at 2 Wellington Place, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS1 4AP.

This says that there was (past tense) an opportunity to appeal within 28 days of the point of issue of the NTK. The date on the NTK is 9 June. As such, only 20 days have passed.

Should this be escalated directly to the IAS? Or should an appeal be sent to the mail address above?

No appeals submitted yet, neither to PCS nor IPC. Thus far, this has not been advised, and my general understanding was that this should be avoided? If that is not correct, then I'm mistaken.

That said, I'm not sure what grounds an appeal would be made on. You might recall when I began this post it was in the context of a lost PCN. There has never really been a claim that the parking charge was not valid, but for the possibility that the company was operating improperly.

The person who received the notice was parked in a bay that PCS asserts they should not have.

What would the appeal claim? Something about the actual parking event, or a claim about non-compliance of the PCN itself?

Brief summary of events up to this point:

1. PCN attached to windscreen - 7 May
2. PCN lost. This thread started.
3. PCN found. Questions raised about the status of PCS.
4. NtK received in mail - 9 June
5. Enquiries submitted to IPC, BPA and DVLA.
6. DVLA confirmed status of PCS - 23 June
7. IPC website observed to have added PCS to AOS list.

Only correspondence sent to IPC thus far was a request to the general inbox with no reference to this case. No correspondence has been sent to PCS as of yet.

Okay. So in short, the £100 fee will have to be paid, then?

This is frustrating! I did visit the IPC site again a few days ago, I think, and saw that PCS was still not showing on the AOS list.


It has now been around two weeks since PCS sent the NtK by mail. IPC has now updated its AOS list to show PCS, and DVLA has responded that PCS is indeed permitted to request KADOE information. Is there a particular game plan at this point?

Reply from DVLA:

Thank you for your correspondence of 13th of June about the release of information
from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register. I have been
asked to formally review your case at Step 1 of our complaint’s procedure.
The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has
procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do
so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must
strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while
enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.
The Government’s policy is that parking operators must be a member of an
Accredited Trade Association (ATA) to receive DVLA data and DVLA will not
disclose data to parking companies who are not members of an ATA and looks
primarily to the ATA’s to monitor adherence to the code of practice and explore and
address non-compliance when it arises. The ATA makes stringent checks before
parking management companies can join. If a company fails to comply with the
relevant code of practice, it can be suspended or expelled, during which time no data
will be provided to it by the DVLA.
The company in question, Parking Control Solution Ltd is a member of the
International Parking Community Ltd (IPC) which is an ATA for the parking industry.
The IPC’s code of practice is published on its website at www.theipc.info under the
heading Accredited Operators Scheme. If a member of this AOS does not comply
with the code of practice, it may be suspended or expelled, during which time no
data will be provided to it by the DVLA. If you feel that any of the practices used by
the company do not comply with the IPC’s code of practice, you may wish to contact
the IPC via their website or by writing to IPC, at PO Box 662 SK10 9NR.
We have fully considered all the information available. If you feel that your
complaint has not been resolved, you can request escalation of your complaint to
Step 2 of the complaints process. Further options about our complaint procedure
can be found online at www.gov.uk/dvla/complaints.

I note frustratingly here that while the letter states that PCS is a member of IPC, it does not call it an accredited member, despite later referring to the Accredited Operator Scheme.