Free Traffic Legal Advice

My wife and/or myself have parked at this car park 2 or 3 times a month for the 20+ years that it has been open.

One of us parked here on the date of the alleged offence to run a few errands in town.

It's unfathomable to us that we would have left without paying for the parking and whilst we often pay via card we occasionally pay with cash. We have no record of a card payment for the parking on the date of the alleged offense.

My wife is the hirer of the vehicle.

The only other time we've received a parking charge notice we didn't get advice and my wife confirmed I was the driver. We got a whole barrage of letters, including from Debt Recovery Plus, and we simply ignored them all. They eventually stopped sending letters.

What is the correct course of action in this instance?

Initial letter and Third Party Authorisation from Skoda






First letter from UKPC




'Final Reminder' from UKPC




Thank you for your help and advice 🙏❤️

It is not a driving offence!

PPCs don't really understand PoFA, but hey-ho!

@DWMB, I'm not clear from the OP whether they have been supplied with the docs referred to, hence these questions to the OP.


OP, you have posted a Notice to Keeper and a Notice to Hirer.

The NTH states that the registered keeper has 'supplied ..a statement[confirming that the vehicle was on hire to the addressee at the material time], a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of liability[signed by the addressee]..'.

So, were the 'three' documents included with the NTH?

You've also posted the Notice to Keeper, but it's unclear whether you obtained this from Skoda e.g. sent with their correspondence to you etc, or from the creditor and it accompanied the NTH.

Was the NTK included with the NTH?

And just to confirm, this process really has two distinct parts:

1. The NTK to the registered keeper. The keeper may relieve themselves of liability by providing the creditor with the 'three' docs. That's it as far as they're concerned. The creditor may not pursue them further, there's no second bite of the cherry whatever the creditor subsequently decides to do.

2. The creditor may pursue the hirer. It's not mandatory, it's an option. But in order to do so they must send a notice to the hirer and this is to be accompanied by the 'three' docs AND a copy of the NTK.

Why is this necessary?

Because the 'three' docs and NTK prove that the creditor tried to recover the charge from the registered keeper, as required, but that the keeper has relieved themselves of liability and the creditor may no longer pursue them for the charge- and may therefore under PoFA pursue the hirer in lieu.
An additional purpose of the NTK is as a reference document because the creditor may not make different financial or more onerous procedural demands upon the hirer than originally made on the keeper and PoFA specifically refers to the use of the NTK as a reference document for this purpose.

So, your potential grounds of appeal to the creditor are as set out by DWMB, but IMO you should answer the above questions before sending.

If Skoda Financial Services are members of the BVRLA, they are already in breach of their ATA rules. A PCN from an unregulated private parking company (PPC) is not an "offence" and the PPC is not an "authority".

As already mentioned above, only the driver can be liable (and they have no idea who was driving) unless UKPC has fully complied with the strict requirements of PoFA paras 13 and 14. In our experience, it is as rare as hens teeth that a PPC fully complies with the requirements of PoFA when it comes to hire/lease vehicles.

Whilst UKPC may mention that they have received the 3 documents, it matters not an iota if they did not include copies of those documents with the NtH. Unless the hirer received the NtH and copies of al three required documents, they cannot transfer liability for the PCN from the driver to the hirer.

It will be worth reviewing the wording on your lease agreement with Skoda to see how it mentions parking charges from private parking companies. Unless there is specific wording about private parking charges, they cannot just charge you an admin fee and threaten to pay the PCN.

This from the BVRLA's own guidance:

Paying and recharging


Rental and leasing companies that choose to pay a private parking charge notice and recharge it to their customer should ensure that their rental/leasing agreement allows them to do this. 


A sample clause, which would allow you to pay and recharge, is: “You will be responsible for paying the following charges: 
All charges and legal costs for any congestion charge, road traffic offence, parking offence or parking notice, or any other offence involving the rental vehicle, including from the vehicle being clamped, seized or towed away.”

Omission of the "or parking notice" contravenes the advice from the BVRLA's own trade guidance. 

Also, how long do we have to appeal?

The Parking Charge Date is 16/03/2024.

The NTK (which we've only received from SKODA) is dated 19/03/2024.

The NTH is dated 04/04/2024.

Thanks again for your help and advice.

https://imgur.com/zbwzo0R

We're still trying to dig out a copy of the contract hire document. The only thing we've seen so far that references fines is in a summary letter after we took delivery of the car...

But you haven't been "fined" at all. All you received was a speculative invoice from an unregulated private parking company for an alleged breach of contract by the the driver of the vehicle. I'll give you £100 for every occurrence of the word "fine" in any of the correspondence you've received from the parking company.

Only a "penalty" charge is a "fine" and only an "authority" such as a council or the police can issue "fines". An ex-clamper thug setting up a private parking company is not an "authority" and cannot issue "fines".

So, you were not "fined" at all. UKPC has failed to provide the necessary documents with the NtH which would allow it to pass the charge on to the hirer as required under PoFA 14(2). UKPC don't know the identity of the driver and you are under no legal obligation to give them that information. They cannot hold you, the keeper liable.

Unfortunately, it is too late to appeal and so you have also missed the opportunity to appeal to POPLA. No big deal.

You must now ignore all debt collection letters. ZZPS, their sister company GCTT and QDR solicitors are all scammers/cowboys who can be safely ignored. None of them have any skin in the game and are third parties to the contract the driver allegedly breached. They can do nothing except try and scare the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying into their scam.

UKPC may, at some stage, instruct one of the roboclaim solicitors, usually DCB Legal or will do so themselves from their own, recent but inexperienced and intellectually malnourished internal "legal department", a Letter of Claim.  If/when they issue a Letter of Claim, come back and we'll advise on a response.

Until that happens, there is nothing else you can do except weather the useless storm of debt collector letters. Some people use them as liner for their bottom of a cat litter tray or as kindling.

The only other suggestion I can make is that you make a complaint (not an appeal) as the keeper to UKPC advising them that they have failed to issue the NtH in accordance with the requirements of PoFA 14(2) and
 so cannot hold you, the keeper liable. This is also a breach of the BPA CoP 21.2 which states:

Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 creates the new legal basis to claim unpaid parking charges from vehicle keepers and hirers. As long as the strict conditions of Schedule 4 are met, you may claim payment from the keeper or the hirer of the vehicle rather than from the driver. To do this you need to follow the procedures set out in the Schedule. You can do this whether the parking originally took place under the terms of a contract or was an act of trespass.

Depending on their response, you could then report them to the BPA for contravening their own ATA rules. They have failed to comply with the requirements of rule 21.2 because they have failed to follow the strict conditions of PoFA 14(2).

The argument and the relevant section of PoFA is right, just replace 'keeper' with 'hirer' and the argument still stands

@_wooky_

VWFS had a policy where they would simply pay a second invoice if received and recharge it to the hirer. It doesn't look as though they are likely to do this given you have had a debt collector letter.

They use different agreements for PCH and PCP. Their recent contract hire agreement included the words "or charges". (At least the one I have seen does)

(Your description suggests the vehicle is PCH, however the fragment you posted looks like a PCP, though it does mention they tax it which is a PCH thing).

If they do happen to pay it a different approach will be needed.