PCN issued seven weeks after incident

WebDev

I got a letter from a private parking company asking me to pay £70 for overstaying my welcome at Asda. I received this letter SEVEN WEEKS after the alleged incident. This was the first correspondence I received and there was nothing left on the car at the time. Surely there is a time limit to these notices.
Due to the extended time, I cannot remember what I was doing on that date, or who may have been using my car. therefore I cannot mount a proper defence to this charge. Maybe that's why they waited seven weeks before sending the notification

Does anyone know what the time limit is?

Umkomaas

If this an ANPR camera capture then that needs to be received by you within 14 days of the event.

At face value this is well out of time - can you confirm that it is via ANPR, not as a follow on from a windscreen ticket?

WebDev

Umkomaas wrote: »

At face value this is well out of time - can you confirm that it is via ANPR, not as a follow on from a windscreen ticket?

Definitely no windscreen ticket. The letter tells me that they have photos of the car at the location on their website. I have checked. They do. ANPR. However, one cannot see a driver.

Umkomaas

WebDev wrote: »

Definitely no windscreen ticket. The letter tells me that they have photos of the car at the location on their website. I have checked. They do. ANPR. However, one cannot see a driver.

Looks like an OOT. Here's what Stroma drafted just a short while ago this evening for a very similar case. Use this, or similar, to suit your circumstances and style.

They are out of time with this, which means they are in breach of the protection of freedoms act 2012, I would write to them with a challenge




Name
Address
VRM No xxxx

Date

Dear

In reference to the speculative invoice xxxxxx dated xxxxxx, the keeper denies all liability to your company as your Notice to Keeper is in breach of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012. If you reject this challenge the keeper requires within 35 days a popla verification code for them to appeal independently, per Version 3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The keeper has nothing further to add, and will not respond to any correspondence from your company unless it contains the popla code, furthermore the keeper is fully aware that you must pay £27+Vat for this, so don't forget!

The challenge will be deemed accepted if there is no popla code on any rejection that you supply within the time-frame stipulated above.

Yours Faithfully

Your name (printed)

WebDev

Umkomaas wrote: »

Looks like an OOT. Here's what Stroma drafted just a short while ago this evening for a very similar case. Use this, or similar, to suit your circumstances and style.

Thanks for this. The letter they sent does imply that they have sent previous correspondence - which I have never received.( However, I doubt that they sent it as they are also offering the 14 day discount. ) Would my appeal still be valid?

Umkomaas

WebDev wrote: »

Thanks for this. The letter they sent does imply that they have sent previous correspondence - which I have never received.( However, I doubt that they sent it as they are also offering the 14 day discount. ) Would my appeal still be valid?

Puts a different slant on things, would have been useful to know that from the outset.

Can you give us a timeline of events, please.

WebDev

The Company is called Smart Parking Ltd.
Have just read letter again. Here goes:

First correspondence received 28 Jun 2013 (dated 25 Jun 2013 and titled "Notice To Owner - Do Not Ignore").
This letter states that discount period expired and £70 required within 14 days or else.
This letter states that 'offence' was committed on 11 May 2013
This letter claims that original notice was dated 16 May 2013.

No original notice was ever received. This letter, dated 25 Jun 2013 is the first notification of any type received in relation to this incident.

Coupon-mad

I would send Broadsword's suggested letters as shown here in pepipoo:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=80531

We really must fight back more than we currently do, and these sort of direct complaints are the way forward IMHO.

You can add to the letters, a paragraph pointing out that the firm are impersonating Council authority by calling their letter a Notice to Owner (should only be a Notice to Keeper as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)

It's clear to me that the offering of a discount and the fact they have called it a Notice to Owner, could well mean that there was no postal Notice dated 16th May and I would include that as a separate paragraph in both letters as well. In the DVLA letter/email, state that you doubt if Smart Parking even had the registered keeper's data within 5 days and if you are correct, thay could not have sent a Notice on the date they claim.

Also copy in the BPA to this complaint as explained here, to try to get sanction points against the firm:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/


HTH

WebDev

Here is the letter I have sent to Smart Parking Ltd
=====================================

Dear Sir/Madam
The unlawful issue of a ‘Notice to Owner’ (BPA AOS Code of Practice B.22)
I was the registered keeper of a xxxxxxxxx motor vehicle registration number xxxxxxxxx
I refer to your Notice to Keeper ref: xxxxx dated xx June 2013.
The fact that your document uses references drawn from the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) it clear that Smart Parking Ltd is dealing with its claim in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA.
The requirements of Schedule 4 PoFA are quite clear in that there must be strict compliance with all of its requirements in order to take advantage of the rights granted under that Act to pursue the registered keeper in respect of a driver’s alleged debt.
The BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 2) supports the need for strict compliance (para 21.5 refers).
Smart Parking Ltd has however failed to comply with the statutory requirements as follows;
Firstly, in regards to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4, PoFA 2012. Whilst your ‘Notice to Owner’ has indicated that you require a payment to be made to Smart Parking Ltd, there is no specific identification of the “Creditor”, who may, in law, be Smart Parking Ltd or Town & City Parking or some other party.
PoFA requires a ‘Notice to Keeper’ to have words to the effect that “The Creditor is….”
The wording of Paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of PoFA does not indicate that the “creditor must be named, but “identified”. To “identify” a “Creditor” a parking company must do more than name that person. The driver is entitled to know the identity of the party with whom he has legally contracted.
This view is supported by the Secretary of State for Transport. He has reserved to himself powers to make regulations to specify not only what must be said in a ‘Notice to Keeper’ but also what evidence should be provided.
He says “The purpose of this power is to leave flexibility to mandate the specific evidence which must accompany a notice to keeper if it becomes clear that creditors are attempting to recover parking charges without providing keepers with sufficient evidence to know whether the claim is valid”
Secondly, in addition to Smart Parking Ltd’s failure to specifically identify the “Creditor”, it has failed to provide any evidence that it, or a third party, is entitled to enforce an alleged breach of contractual terms and conditions.
Thirdly, the most serious failure and that which has given me cause to submit a formal complaint to the DVLA.

You have failed to comply with paragraph 9.4 of Schedule 4 of the Act in that you failed to give the Notice to Keeper to me within the “relevant period”.
The alleged infringement occurred on the xx May 2013 and no ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued at the time. The Notice to Keeper is dated xxth June 2013 which is 45 days after the event and too late to ensure delivery within the statutory 14 days prescribed by PoFA.
Paragraph 9(4) indicates that the Notice to Keeper must be given to the registered keeper not more than 14 days after the car allegedly infringed the car park terms and conditions. Paragraph 9(6) states that “A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted”.
Your letter claims that an original notice was sent just two working days after the incident. No original notice was ever received and I believe it was never sent as I doubt you could receive keeper details from DVLA in such a short time.
Your letter is titled “Notice to Owner – Do Not Ignore”. It seems to me that you are impersonating Council authority by calling your letter a ‘Notice to Owner’, as the Protection of Freedoms Act clearly states that it should be a Notice to Keeper.
Your company would have been well aware of these facts when it took the decision to send out the Notice to Keeper under PoFA. You have misrepresented the legal position in the full knowledge that there can be no keeper liability.
That is an aggravating feature which the DVLA must take into account in determining what sanction to issue to your company.
I therefore expect you to immediately cancel the ‘parking charge’ and inform me, in writing that you have done.
If however, you reject this challenge, then, in accordance with the BPA Ltd AOS Code of Practice (version 2) 22.12, please ensure that you enclose all the required information (including the necessary ‘POPLA code’) so that I may immediately refer this matter (and any further issues that I may subsequently raise) for their adjudication on the matter.
I do not expect to receive a ‘generic’ template response and which fails to address the specific issues that I have raised with you. No further correspondence will be entered into.

Yours sincerely




=====================================

Coupon-mad

And hope you also sent a complaint to the British Parking Assoc. (simple email link on their website 'complain about an AOS member') and to the DVLA as described by Broadsword on that link.