Parking Charge Notice

Guys_Dad

If you look at post #22 at the payment slip, it says that they have the right after 28 days to claim the money from the keeper.

Now that is keeper liability to me.

But the good old IPC have a section 7.3 that I included in my previous post

7.3 Where you have not complied with the terms of PoFA, you must not infer that keeper liability exists

So, it seems that they have broken the IPC AOS as their NtK is out of time and they have implied keeper liability.

This would be my main plank of appeal to both the PPC and the IPC, quoting the IPC para 7.3 - in other words the NtK is non-compliant.

The complaint to the DVLA should include the NtK as it stands and the IPC relevant point as well.

So we will see if the IPC are prepared to stand by their guidelines.

4consumerrights

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

4cr but by doing anything other then a normal appeal we are loosing an early chance to test the IAC....

Oooh KIFL - don't misunderstand me -those were just my early thoughts doing some basic research - I certainly think we should do a normal appeal - we are all after all dying to test the new allegedly "independent" system.

Letter to PPC:


Dear sir

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and deny any liability to pay the parking charge issued.

There is no evidence supplied that the alleged contravention took place and the driver does indeed have a valid paid permit for the vehicle in question.

There is therefore no loss either to the landowner or the parking company in this instance and I request that you cancel the parking charge accordingly or provide details on how to apply to your independent appeals process. In this case further evidence will be required to prove you have the authority to issue and pursue charges.

Please note that should you not cancel this charge, and I further can prove no liability to pay any monies to your company, then I reserve the right to raise a claim for damages against your company to recoup any losses incurred in dealing with this matter.

Yours faithfully

squiggle name

Registered Keeper.

salmosalaris

"7.3 Where you have not complied with the terms of PoFA, you must not infer that keeper liability exists"

That was not written by a solicitor , well not a very good one . One does not infer , one implies !

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

That's fair enough 4cr but on this occasioni would leave ths bottom paragraph off.

kazire

Here is the signage!

So should u copy the letter 4consumerrights has posted minus the last paragraph? And is there anything else to include

4consumerrights

@Kaire thanks tor the photo of sign -so many things wrong and so many things to raise for an appeal here!

It's entirely up to you whether to include the last paragraph in the letter I penned above for you. Personally I would include it as it is deliberately worded in such a way that you have nothing to lose by its inclusion.

No need to include anything else at this stage although you could enclose a copy the driver's permit with the appeal. (make sure that you emphasise that it is from the driver)

kazire

Rather than say the driver could we not just say the car has a permit?

Coupon-mad

Yep, you could say 'the vehicle is covered by a permit'.

nigelbb

What a mess that sign is. They are claiming that by contravening the T&Cs you are agreeing to pay a £100 charge. You cannot enter into a contract to do something that is forbidden!

Coupon-mad

I hope that this OP got the appeal in before 27th December as the NTK gave 14 days to appeal (not 28) which I think might be as per the IPC rules. We will have to remember this - and if this OP posted the appeal I can't see that it would have reached them by 27th December due to Christmas in between.

When we get time we need to study the IPC CoP in detail - must admit I have not done so. I seem to recall they say that keepers can only appeal in certain circs (not sure what) and that the OPs cannot add further evidence to an IPC appeal once it's submitted. I wonder if it says anything about submitting the same appeal to the IPC as to the PPC? Maybe no soft appeals in future for these firms?

It all needs a good discussion on a new thread soon, maybe we should continue this discussion here:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4859061

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But the good old IPC have a section 7.3 that I included in my previous post

7.3 Where you have not complied with the terms of PoFA, you must not infer that keeper liability exists

So, it seems that they have broken the IPC AOS as their NtK is out of time and they have implied keeper liability.

This would be my main plank of appeal to both the PPC and the IPC, quoting the IPC para 7.3 - in other words the NtK is non-compliant.

I agree, breach of the IPC AOS CoP and non-compliance with POFA 2012 so no keeper liability established. Also for IPC stage, we need to add in all the usual POPLA arguments to test them. No OP should be writing a short IPC appeal IMHO.

This OP needs to edit ANY post here which shows or implies who the driver was, urgently!