Civil Enforcement LTD Hospital Fine

Forget the signs, just send the first letter PCN (which is the NTK but is non POFA) and the ZZPS letter. Don't send it all 'please and thankyou'. Just a curt (short) email reply telling him you have already attached both letters to Esme so not sure why you are having to jump through even more hoops with this complaint, but here are the offending letters again. Copy in David Dunford AGAIN, even if he has carefully excluded him!

Tell them you never were served with a PCN but it is a fact in the public domain that CEL never use a POFA version, so the complaint stands and here is the offending ZZPS letter lying about keeper liability. What are the BPA and DVLA going to do to stop ZZPS misleading people who don't know the difference and the facts about 'keeper liability' and why did Esme say that CEL issued a NTK 'under the POFA' when it would have taken her just 2 minutes to establish they never do, even if she had had to call CEL to check...

Take a look at the POPLA Decisions thread at the top of the forum for post #2575.

Did CEL use similar wording that lost them the POPLA adjudication in their correspondence with you?

danmc1309 wrote: »

The plot thickens attached is a photo of the ticket on the car and a information printed on the ticket. I will upload these images later when I have had chance to try and remove information.

BPA-11034

Dear Xx,

Thank you for your patience while we looked into your enquiry.

We have contacted the operator who have provided us with a copy of the Notice to Driver that was placed on your vehicle, along with an image evidencing the notice on your vehicle (attached).

On the notice it is stated: “This PCN has been issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012”.

As the PCN has been issued utilising POFA (2012), there has not been a breach of the Code in this instance. Therefore we are unable to assist you further and will now close this case.

Yours Sincerely,

{Text removed by MSE Forum Team}
AOS Investigations Team
British Parking Association
Email: aos@britishparking.co.uk
Web: https://www.britishparking.co.uk

Email to: aos@britishparking.co.uk


cc: David Dunford, DVLA



Dear {Text removed by MSE Forum Team},

Re: PCN xxxxxxx complaint re misleading information about keeper liability

The case is most certainly not closed. This is embarrassing for the BPA; a terrible example of the BPA fobbing off consumer complainants. All replies are being placed in the public domain, for which I make no apology, also copied to David Duford at the DVLA and I will escalate the matter to the DCLG if the BPS fail to investigate my complaint properly.

I expect a professional and diligent reply this time, please. I am indeed being patient.

One would hope that your training on the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, would have told you that a Notice to Driver like that one MUST be followed within 29 - 56 days, by a fully-compliant 'Notice to Keeper' in the post, without which there can be no 'keeper liability'.

Bear in mind that I am the registered keeper and no PCN was found on the car so the NTK is vital. Please show me the evidence you obtained from your member, of both sides of the resulting NTK. This is the document I was referring to, since I was unaware of any Notice to Driver which cannot, on its own, comply with the POFA. The point being, it is known that CEL do not use the POFA wording at all on their NTKs.

A random sentence on a ghost ticket purportedly photographed then removed, does not make a keeper liable.

I look forward to hearing from you with a proper response including a scan of both sides of the Notice to Keeper which I am sure you will note will omit almost the entire wording from paragraph 8, it being a non-POFA version. CEL do not have a POFA version, to my knowledge.

Finally, my contact was not 'an enquiry'. Kindly log it as a formal complaint, or are the BPA in the business of logging complaints as 'enquiries/closed cases' to dumb down the number of complaints you have to report to the DVLA? This is one.

kind regards,