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.
Search the forum for N180, for example https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/advice-needed-ncp-birmingham-international-airport/msg115925/#msg115925
Also read Section A of the N180 carefully.
You have to respond by 3 February with a defence, or Acknowledgment of Service, in the latter case this will give you until 17 February to file a defence.
Under your “treat as urgent” I would suggest the latter which removes your self-imposed urgency.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c45e568ed915d38a0611a61/n9-eng.pdf
You have to respond by 3 February with a defence, or Acknowledgment of Service, in the latter case this will guve you until 17 February to file a defence.
So you've told them who the driver was?
No, I never did precisely.
If you are relying on the NTK not being POFA compliant, who knows, its just b789 personal opinion and it's never been tested in court and other experienced posters on here don't necessarily agree. Maybe you will be the one to settle the matter one way or the other.
As for a CCJ, you only get one of those if you lose and dont pay, so completely your control.
They have added a fake £30 to the charge which will not be allowed if this gets to court and you are unsuccessful. Having submitted your AoS, your defence must be submitted by 4pm on Monday 1st September.
Has the driver been identified? ParkingEye (and CPP) NtKs are never 100% PoFA compliant. They always fail PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as they do not invite the Keeper to pay the charge. They only say that if the Keeper was not the driver, they should pass the NtK on to the driver and inform the operator of the drivers details.
This paragraph mandates that for a parking operator to hold the vehicle's registered keeper liable for a parking charge, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include:
An "Invitation to Pay": The notice must explicitly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
Exact Wording: The wording must clearly convey this invitation and mere implication or indirect suggestions are insufficient. The act requires strict compliance, meaning that any failure to fully incorporate this invitation renders the notice non-compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.
If the NtK fails to include a clear "invitation to pay", or any synonym of the word "invitation", this omission is a breach of Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Even if the notice suggests that payment is required, without an explicit invitation directed towards the keeper to settle the charge, the notice does not meet the exacting requirements of PoFA 2012.
The law mandates full and exact compliance with the specified wording and content outlined in PoFA 2012. Even if the notice largely complies with other requirements, the absence of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay is a significant flaw. The operator cannot rely on partial or even substantial compliance — every element as specified in the legislation must be present and correct.
If the notice is found to lack this crucial element, it can be used as a basis to challenge the parking charge. The operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper, which significantly weaken their case if the notice to the driver or other requirements are also flawed or if the driver is unknown.
In summary, a PCN that does not include an explicit "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA 2012. Since the law demands strict adherence, any omission, even if minor, invalidates the notice and relieves the keeper of any obligation to pay. This should be raised in any appeal or legal response to the charge.
So, has the driver been identified? If yes, then ignore the above information.
Without seeing the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) or knowing whether any appeal was made and if so, what was in the appeal, it is difficult to advise further at this stage.
When you have answered the questions about the NtK and any prior submission to ParkingEye, I can come up with a suitable defence, especially one that picks holes in their PoC.