Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
A Letter of Claim would normally be sent by post to the same postal address as the original PCN.
You can email them back with the following response:QuoteSubject: Re: PCN [insert reference] – Driver Details Not Required
Dear UKPC Appeals Department,
Thank you for your template fishing attempt.
Your request for the driver’s details is noted and declined. You have already been informed that I am the keeper, and that your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such, you cannot transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me.
If your staff are unable to understand why your NtK is non‑compliant, I suggest you review Schedule 4 more carefully. Keeper liability is a strict statutory regime: partial or almost compliance is not compliance. You do not get to rely on PoFA unless you meet every requirement, which you have not.
Your continued attempts to obtain the driver’s identity are noted. I will not be assisting you in curing your own statutory defects.
You now have two options:1. Issue a POPLA code, or
2. Cancel the PCN and save us both further wasted time.
If you require guidance on my position, you may refer to the response famously given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
I look forward to your POPLA code or your confirmation of cancellation.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered 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. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.
If possible please don't use the Report to Moderator function for this as it sends email notifications to all 5 of us.
I wouldn't worry too much about having accidentally revealed who was driving here. UKPC are issuing around 1,500 charges a day - they'll not be expending time trawling this forum for the extremely small minority who put up a fight.
Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper to reveal the identity of the unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. UKPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered 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. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.
No other PCN has been mentioned as far as I can see - seems the OP just paid for one that was not on that day.
We don't even know if the bus lane PCN had yet been sent to Hertz but probably was.
With respect, IMO you're losing focus.
'Why is it Hertz's problem?'
Because: 'There remains an additional outstanding penalty from that date.'
And it's likely to have your name on it, so to speak.
So you need to speak to Hertz.
As regards the council, let's think through what you've asked. If you got a refund, there's still the PCN for which you are responsible. So, are you really asking for a refund or that the payment you made be applied to PCN 'your hire', instead of PCN 'not your hire'.
And if this happened, Hertz would still have a PCN demanding payment of the penalty, but you'd have paid it. And if they were to simply pay again and charge you then all sorts of admin. chaos would follow.
And there's the issue of what happened to the PCN which currently you've paid, this is in someone's hands, but whose and what's happening to it?
Hertz/the registered keeper would know.
Surely when you pay someone in error, and the receiver acknowledges it is an error, there is grounds to claim the money back?
You paid an outstanding PCN. Why is this GCC's fault? *
And of course it's Hertz's issue, not necessarily as the owner but perhaps as lessee, but if you want to butt your head against GCC, then do so. My previous advice stands.
Why do you want a refund from GCC, you just want a refund?
According to you, you paid a penalty charge in respect of a PCN which had been issued to the registered keeper. Neither we nor you know who this was because often hire companies lease vehicles which means the lessor would be a finance company or similar. But who knows in your case, you need to find out.
But what you do know is that it was paid by you.
I would go back to the hire company and find out what's what. I would keep the matter lighthearted, don't go in all guns blazing. Just find out who to contact and then write and explain, after all they're the ones you've paid for, haven't you.
This is an administrative dispute - you don't have any standing to revisit the PCN. All you can do is escalate it with the council in some way but you should have checked the PCN date/location before paying - did you ask?
Nothing for you to do. They can issue the claim at any time but they have not responded to your last communication back in May. There is no automatic requirement in law to issue a fresh LoC, but in practice, if they now wish to litigate, they ought to send updated, compliant pre-action correspondence first. If they don’t, that’s something you can use against them on conduct and costs.