Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 11:05 AM
    • 10Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Notarobot
    PPS IAS Golden ticket advice plese
    • #1
    • 9th Nov 17, 11:05 AM
    PPS IAS Golden ticket advice plese 9th Nov 17 at 11:05 AM
    I have a faulty NtK (deemed delivery 19 days after short overstay, no proper 28-day warning of action against Keeper). Driver is and will remain unknown and cannot be inferred. Leaving aside mitigating circumstances which will only count with humans, and possible signage issues which are being checked, what is the current likely outcome at PPS, then IAS, then CC on the basis of unknown driver and invalid NtK? Could it be considered unprofessional of PPS to appeal given the clear invalidity of the NtK?

    Separately, is there any current mileage in the cost argument for a short overstay in an empty car park with no retail connections?

    Thanks to all forum stalwarts and for any replies.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 1:18 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 9th Nov 17, 1:18 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Nov 17, 1:18 PM
    1. No chance with the PPC.
    2. Next to no chance with the IAS.
    3. Depends how well you argue ‘No Keeper Liability’ with the Judge, some have understood it, some haven’t (DJ lottery).
    4. Depends who you are thinking of in considering them as ‘unprofessional’, but it won’t win you anything.
    5. Cost argument - no longer washes thanks to PE v Beavis.

    ‘Golden Ticket’ relates primarily to PE NtKs (but not totally exclusively) and to POPLA appeals - POPLA are starting to understand this specific issue. The IAS only seem to understand what the PPC says - the motorist is routinely assumed to be lying.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 09-11-2017 at 1:20 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 9th Nov 17, 1:26 PM
    • 1,812 Posts
    • 3,202 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #3
    • 9th Nov 17, 1:26 PM
    • #3
    • 9th Nov 17, 1:26 PM
    Have you considered taking the matter up with the DVLA. If the PPC are claiming "keeper liability" and demonstrably they can't, the DVLA will usually investigate.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 8:55 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    • #4
    • 9th Nov 17, 8:55 PM
    • #4
    • 9th Nov 17, 8:55 PM
    Thanks Umkomass. As I understand it my NtK (by ANPR) fails to meet the statutory requirements on two points which are provable matters of fact. By what arguments do any of the people I may meet seek to ignore this?.. The legislation was drafted to provide some protection in great detail so no part can be regarded as trivial. To me it seems unprofessional not to understand the relevant law and to pursue people wrongly, and the IPC code requires professional behaviour. And would not a judge note POPLA decisions?.

    Thanks IamEmanresu That seems very interesting. Do you have precedents? If the DVLA could make clear that a faulty NtK ends the matter and instruct IAS to rule accordingly or cease to be an accepted ADR it could be generally helpful.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 9:24 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:24 PM
    • #5
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:24 PM
    By what arguments do any of the people I may meet seek to ignore this?
    Some judges have. They are a law unto themselves in their own court - they have quite some discretion. If they get the law ‘wrong’ an appeal is possible, but you take a chance on some costs.

    The legislation was drafted to provide some protection in great detail so no part can be regarded as trivial.
    Of course. Some judges will run this for you, some will require you to argue it, others will have already made their minds up before you step into their courtroom - not necessarily in your favour.

    To me it seems unprofessional not to understand the relevant law and to pursue people wrongly, and the IPC code requires professional behaviour.
    Complain to the IPC and let us know how they fob you off.

    And would not a judge note POPLA decisions?.
    They might, or they might not. POPLA is hardly likely to be a precedent setting body in the eyes of the civil court. The precedents a civil court will acknowledge are those from an Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. Plus you’d need to deal with the PPCs argument that as an IPC AOS member, it would be the IAS appeals service that is relevant. Good luck with finding anything likely to be termed precedent setting in favour of the motorist from that lot!

    You are dealing with PPS, but it would help if you gave us their full name are there are a few with the potential to use the same/similar acronym. We can give you a better idea of the likelihood of a court case.

    http://www.bmpa.eu/company_guide_p_to_s.html

    IamEmanresu is an experienced and prolific poster here and on PePiPoo, so follow his advice and complain to the DVLA (David Dunford) that the PPC is continuing to pursue the keeper despite serving a non-compliant NtK.

    david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 17, 9:32 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:32 PM
    • #6
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:32 PM
    Are you saying the letter talks about keeper liability?

    Or have you (a common assumption) wrongly assumed that PPCs have to follow the POFA?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 9:39 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    • #7
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:39 PM
    • #7
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:39 PM
    Thanks again. Premier Parking Services. I have checked that link and the chances are very low of court action. I have not decided on strategy yet but asuming the PPC behave as expected I am more than happy to complain to DVLA (great to have a name). And more than happy to complain to IPC. To my simple (but trained scientific) mind anyone who promulgates Fake Law needs to be hunted down to the laat Tweet.

    The kitchen sink approach advocated to wear everyone down and raise their costs does make sense but in this case I am inclining towards focussing on the stark core points.

    I am also thinking of offering £15 without prejudice (which more than covers their estimated expenses to date by their own summary) to end the matter, not so much expecting it will (fine if it does, there was a breach which has cost them), but as reserve evidence when it comes to arguing for costs at Court (i.e. that there was a reasonable opportunity to settle that was rejected). You will probably tell me this is crazy.
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 9:48 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    • #8
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:48 PM
    • #8
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:48 PM
    Thank you, Coupon-Mad. I already know this is a famous name in these parts.

    The letter is headed Notice to keeper. It invites me to pay or to give the name of the driver. The only other meaningful sentence in three pages is 'Failure to pay this charge may result in enforcement action which could include County Court proceedings and which may incur additional costs'. In other words, not POFA compliant. The PPC do not yet know the driver will not be revealed and have not been told the NtK is faulty, so I do not know their next step. But surely they can't pursue an unknown driver (there are several possible drivers so they cannot infer one), and how can they use a non-POFA-compliant NtK to pursue the keeper. I have seen several statements in the forum that they can't do either.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 9:50 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:50 PM
    • #9
    • 9th Nov 17, 9:50 PM
    You will probably tell me this is crazy.
    ‘Crazy’ is a bit strong! But you won’t get anywhere with it, in my opinion. Why waste your time and give them the idea that by offering some money you have some degree of concern and you might be a potential to offer more, and as it costs them little else to up the ante by tightening the thumbscrews by issuing more threatening letters, either themselves or by their lapdog debt collectors, why not hassle you a bit more.

    Think about it.
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 09-11-2017 at 9:53 PM.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 17, 9:50 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Premier Parking Services.
    Not Solutions?

    I am also thinking of offering £15 without prejudice (which more than covers their estimated expenses to date by their own summary) to end the matter, not so much expecting it will (fine if it does, there was a breach which has cost them), but as reserve evidence when it comes to arguing for costs at Court (i.e. that there was a reasonable opportunity to settle that was rejected).

    You will probably tell me this is crazy.
    Bargepole told a poster that earlier today, in effect!

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73386158#post73386158


    But surely they can't pursue an unknown driver (there are several possible drivers so they cannot infer one), and how can they use a non-POFA-compliant NtK to pursue the keeper. I have seen several statements in the forum that they can't do either.
    They can't recover money from a keeper, using a non-POFA NTK. But that NTK doesn't say the registered keeper will be liable. There's nothing to stop a PPC issuing a non-POFA NTK. They can.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 09-11-2017 at 9:53 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 9:54 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    So sorry. Premier Parking Solutions. Good spot.

    What legal authority would any non-POFA NTK they go on to issue have?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 17, 9:57 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's legal as a vehicle to recover money from the driver.

    Don't tell them who was driving and they are stuffed. But the NTK is not illegal or void.

    It's merely a driver-only liability document...perfectly OK for them to send it to a keeper and 'enquire' who was driving.

    Perfectly OK for you not to tell them!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 10:06 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    To be clear:

    they can't chase a driver they do not know: they cannot legally obtain the driver's name; they cannot pursue a keeper on the basis of a non-POFA NtK All they can do is ask for the driver's name until
    they get bored. Anything else is unprofessional and arguably illegal. The only way they win is with a dumb CC judge, which would lead to this forum crowd-funding an Appeal to someone who can read!

    Is this a fair summary?

    The moving emojis below this box are fascinating my cat.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 10:22 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    arguably illegal
    Unlawful maybe. Illegal .... ? Check definitions. I’m sure your ‘trained scientific mind’ wouldn’t want to confuse these.

    which would lead to this forum crowd-funding an Appeal
    I’m broke with supporting crowd-funding cases!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 9th Nov 17, 10:38 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    You sent me to my dictionary, which defines illegal as unlawful! If they pursue someone without lawful cause they are involved in harrassment. There are probably degrees of this which may vary between
    civil nuisance and crimimal offences which I am certainly not fsamiliar with. But the behaviour is wrong and open to challenge.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 9th Nov 17, 11:31 PM
    • 51,719 Posts
    • 65,369 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    We are not disagreeing with you, yes it's harassment and causes distress! Keep all the letters.

    Trouble is, the DVLA says that a parking firm DOES have reasonable cause to get the keeper's data in order to ask who was driving.

    All they can do is ask for the driver's name until they get bored.
    Yep...but some daft PPCs try a claim anyway 'on the assumption the keeper was the driver' and some stupid courts have (on odd occasions) agreed. I seem to recall (pepipoo poster) Janeo's case at Wigan court went that way, Judge was awful.

    However, here on this MSE forum, we help 99% of people to win their defended cases.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 10th Nov 17, 12:22 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    Thank you again, Coupon -mad.

    On reflection I have taken on board forum advice to throw more of the kitchen at it and this is my current draft if you can bear to comment. The thread Notice to Keeper 1 month after event 5170188 is good on the core point. What I show below is only on the main issue; all the rest of the boiler-plate does not need to appear here.

    Dear Premier Parking Solutions

    Your ref XXXXXXX

    I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned.
    This Parking Charge is hereby appealed.

    The driver at the time of this incident will never be identified, so

    cannot be pursued. Further requests on this will be ignored and filed

    under ‘harrassment’.

    The grounds for this appeal are unenforceability of the PCN; the

    human unreasonableness of the charge, the legibility of the notices at

    night and your right to raise such a charge.

    1)Unenforceability
    You have nobody to pursue. You do not and will not know and cannot

    infer the driver (see Appendix 1). As a matter of law you cannot seek

    to transfer liability to the keeper without a POFA-compliant NtK, which

    as you must know you do not have (deemed arrival 19 days after the

    incident, no required wording about keeper liability after 28 days,

    thereby failing the requirements of POFA 2012 section 9 -

    see Appendix 2) and cannot now obtain. Further NtKs you may send will
    simply be ignored and filed under harrassment’.

    The PCN must therefore be cancelled, as confirmed by multiple decisions

    by the truly independent ADR POPLA (Appendix 3).

    Not to do so would be unprofessional and potentially vexatious. On

    this basis any further action you may take will lead to complaints

    to DVLA and IPC, and if your chosen ADR the IAS continues to miss

    this point (if it comes to an IAS appeal) a similar complaint will

    be made as regards its integrity and competence.

    2)Human unreasonableness
    It is true that there was an overstay of 23 minutes including

    grace periods (the ticket purchased for 2 hours is available, with the

    correct registration number). The car park was empty at the times

    noted and probably throughout and has no retail connection, so

    there was no loss of income or damage to any party. The overstay

    was caused by the unexpected need to help someone who had

    gone to XXXXX Hospital with a broken foot, and it seemed more

    appropriate to provide the help than to get back to an empty car

    park in strict time. The amount of the penalty for such a

    small breach in such a context would be judged unreasonable by

    almost all humans, so this is your opportunity to show that you

    apply human judgement to your technological results and cancel the

    PCN (leaving aside its unenforceability). Your response on this

    point will be noted to the Landowner and in any subsequent action.

    I recognise that you have already incurred certain minimal expenses in

    issuing the NtK as you have set out elsewhere before having had an

    opportunity to consider the context. Therefore, without prejudice but

    to demonstrate reasonableness and a distaste for prolonging this nonsense,
    this appeal carries an offer to pay £15 with no admission of any

    liability if you cancel the PCN immediately. This covers your expenses

    to date and is arguably the only point at which you can end this

    matter without a loss. Please do not mistake reasonableness for

    weakness as some have suggested to me you may.


    Any continuation of this matter will be met with steady resistance with

    the resources of online forums and professional friends, since

    ultimately it is a matter of protecting the integrity of the law.

    A rejection of this offer will also be used later as necessary as evidence of your behaviour



    There will follow standard material from the above thread and other

    threads about signage, right to charge, future behaviour, expenses etc.,
    and appendices.
    Appendix 1 will contain extensive material including Henry Greenslade enerally as in the very useful material at the end of thread 5170188
    (Notice to keeper 1 month after the event).


    Should, despite all the above, this matter finish up in Court be

    advised that expenses for any loss of earnings will be claimed as is

    permitted, and the possibility that the claim could be regarded as

    vexatious will also be explored.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 10th Nov 17, 3:47 PM
    • 15,900 Posts
    • 24,655 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    What are you planning after this is rejected?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 10th Nov 17, 4:14 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    What will I do next, Unkomas?!

    Take myself at my word that rejection shows unacceptable misunderstanding of the rules and report accordingly to DVLA and IPC. Appeal to IAS and complain similarly about them to DVLA and IPC.
    File any further letters under 'harrassment'. Defend with enthusiasm at CC if necessary, claiming expenses on the basis of the record. Consider involving the MP. It seems necessary to establish the rule of law.

    There also seems a case about signage. There are only two signs. The one at the entrance does not mention parking charges. The one behind the machine has dense wording with the PCN sentence right at the bottom in bold but not a bigger font than the main text and not in larger font and/or red like material at the top about Private Land and Contract. Even in daylight parking by and using the machine would have the Parking Charge bit obscured by the machine. At night there is no lighting - Denning's red pointer it is not. Photos at night are being obtained and they will be asked to provide full specifications and their own images of their signs by day and night. Their right to charge after dark will be in question.

    One does have to wonder about the mind-set of a company that would reject this appeal. They will be well into loss territory by the time they have replied, let alone dealt with the IAS appeal. I wish I could send you an image, Beavis it is not..
    • Notarobot
    • By Notarobot 4th Dec 17, 5:07 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Notarobot
    PPS granted the Appeal. Thanks to all who helped at the start. No reason given. The unenforceability argument was vigorously stated, with promises to complain to DVLA and IPC on grounds of misunderstanding POFA and unprofessional behaviour if they did not understand. Unlit signage (parking started shortly after lighting -up time), and non-compliant signage (two signs still had BPA membership, signs on way in had red warnings about not parking in entrance area on pain of clearly signed PCN warning (thereby breaking the IPC requirement to state all terms and conditions or none) and PCN warning on the main board being lost in a msss of black text and largely obscured from view by the meter when paying) may have swayed them. A pragmatic offer to pay £15 to cover the actual costs of issuing the PCN was accepted. No way of knowing if that made a difference.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,124Posts Today

7,687Users online

Martin's Twitter