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.

Messages - Llocou

Pages: [1]
1
Thank you both. The PCN does not, as far as I can see, make any reference whatsoever to POFA (as InterCity125 stated in the first response). I'm thinking a simple response as follows:

Dear Gemini Parking Solutions,

As you have stated, the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention is liable for the charge, if any is applicable. However, I am simply the registered keeper, and the driver is not known to you. I will not be supplying you with information regarding details of the driver at the time of the alleged offence, as I am not required to do so.

If you look to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') going forward, then please note your Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be compliant with Paragraph 9 of POFA. The NTK failed to comply with several of the stipulations under Schedule 9 of POFA, and hence the liability can not be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper. Therefore I, as registered keeper, have no liability for any charge, and furthermore will not be identifying the driver.

I do not expect to hear from you again regarding this matter, unless with confirmation that the Parking Charge Notice has been unconditionally cancelled.

Kind Regards,
Registered Keeper



In terms of specific non-compliance to paragraph 9, should it come to that...

2(a) they have specified the vehicle, land, and period [albeit I am uncertain on the 'relevant land' part]
(b) they have informed that the driver is liable
(c) & (d) described the charges due
(e) they have stated they do not know the identity of the driver, and invite the keeper to pay the charge of identify the driver
(f) they do not warn the keeper about the 28 days
(g) they have informed the keeper of a discount
(h) they have identified the creditor and how to pay

So in terms of the failing to comply on many of these stipulations, what would I point to in future (if necessary)? Thanks again!

2
PCN received today - no response yet to Gemini Parking Solutions. Driver allegedly parked outside of marked bay. Parking was free at the time of the alleged contravention, though I don't suppose this is relevant to the matter. The reason I would dispute this, is that the car park comes off Ledrington Road (see google maps link below). This road has double yellows, which the driver avoided parking on. There is no demarcation between Ledrington Road and the car park itself. While the vehicle was allegedly parked outside of a marked bay, it was unclear whether the vehicle was parked in the car park, or on the road, not on double yellows. The car park is far too small for the facility it serves, and at the time of the alleged offence, there were easily more cars parked outside of marked bays, than there are marked bays (many cars on the grass verges etc.) - again probably not directly relevant to the matter but for context the vehicle in question was far from being the only one contravening. I do not have any images of the signs in the car park stating terms, though should assume that this states vehicles must be parked in marked bays. Any legitimate grounds for appeal?


Location of car park


Street View of where car was parked (to the left of disabled spaces)


PCN Front



PCN Rear

Pages: [1]