Fine on hospital property, given to staff

Scigal_2

The date on the form was 21st jan so I should have 28 days from then? Oh heck now Im worried.

Scigal_2

Does this sound right please?

Thanks

I am not liable as POFA 2012 has not been invoked here and I was categorically, not the driver. 'Keeper liability' can only be established if the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 are met. That would have involved sending a fully compliant Notice to Keeper between day 29 and day 56 after the windscreen ticket. A speculative invoice was sent on day 16, and therefore there is no keeper liability, as POFA 2012 requirements were not met. The notice to keeper was sent well ahead of the minimum of 28 days. The parking event occurred 16th October 2013. First letter asking for money received 1/11/13, 2nd letter wanting twice amount received 28/11. No letter before action issued.
This case has been levelled at the registered keeper and the registered keeper is not the driver. There is no keeper liability.
The NHS Trust has used 'reasonable cause' to get the DVLA data because they are not a private parking company and the Hospital could show reasonable cause (and their solicitors are acting for them in that regard). But they could ONLY get that data for the purpose of trying to level this charge at the driver. A complaint was made to the DVLA in writing about this data confidentiality issue. Only Approved Operator Scheme of an Accredited Trade Association such as the BPA (or the IPC) members can get DVLA data.
This charge is also an invoice, it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss that could be caused by any alleged breach, in fact a parking permit is paid for monthly on that car and therefore there is no financial loss to the Trust.
The Trusts solicitors failed to follow the Practice Direction, as no Letter before claim was sent, this would have enabled the keeper to have sent a formal response and request a POFA code.
The CEO of the hospital has also been contacted about this event.

Coupon-mad

Scigal wrote: »

The date on the form was 21st jan so I should have 28 days from then? Oh heck now Im worried.

Date of claim plus 33 days I believe (as 5 days are added for 'service'). Calm down!

Coupon-mad

I was categorically, not the driver.

As long as that is true then you are halfway there (never lie in court). But have you not yet read the links by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread, under small claims? I am sure I added a summary defence there only the other day.

Scigal_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As long as that is true then you are halfway there (never lie in court). But have you not yet read the links by bargepole in the NEWBIES thread, under small claims? I am sure I added a summary defence there only the other day.

The RK was not the driver, that is true.

Yes Ive been reading as much as I can, and trying to make sense of it all.

4consumerrights

I've just read this whole thead - IMO they are mad to take this to court. IIRC The solicitor and trust have been slated in the press regarding the high fees paid.

I am assuming that you did acknowledge the claim within 14 days of service first stating you would defend in full?

It may be that they didn't access the DVLA database but used employee's records - a few amendments below in blue.


The NHS Trust has used 'reasonable cause' to get the DVLA data because they are not a private parking company and the Hospital could show reasonable cause (and their solicitors are acting for them in that regard). But they could ONLY get that data for the purpose of trying to level this charge at the driver. A complaint was made to the DVLA in writing about this data confidentiality issue. Only Approved Operator Scheme of an Accredited Trade Association such as the BPA (or the IPC) members can get DVLA data. I believe in this instance the principles of the Data Protection Act have been breached. In this case also, the defendant has been denied the right to formally challenge this parking charge by the avenues normally open to AOS members. This is normally done via an independent appeals system which is POPLA for BPA members or the IAS for IPC members.
[STRIKE]This charge is also an invoice, it is not a genuine pre estimate of loss that could be caused by any alleged breach, in fact a parking permit is paid for monthly on that car and therefore there is no financial loss to the Trust. [/STRIKE]The amount claimed for this parking charge is disproportionate and punitive and does not reflect any genuine pre-estimate of loss incurred to the landowner in question. This vehicle was covered by a permit which is paid for by the driver on a monthly basis deducted from the salary, therefore the driver is a staff member and fully entitled to park. The allegation was that there was no valid permit displayed; therefore I request that this claim by struck out as there is no basis to continue. There was no financial loss incurred to the claimant as this is a fully paid-up permit. The OFT have also stated that parking charges are not automatically recoverable just because they are stated to be a parking charge. It cannot be used to create a loss where no loss exists. This charge is therefore by default an unenforceable penalty.
The Trusts solicitors failed to follow the Practice Direction, as no Letter before claim was sent, this would have enabled the keeper to have sent a formal response [STRIKE]and request a POFA code. [/STRIKE]and to challenge the basis of this claim.

Scigal_2

Ivew added this

There are 3,760 parking spaces, which means that each space costs £156. Staff parking accounts for 70% of all spaces. £ 150 per space, per year. The permit charge is approximately £120 per year. Which equates to approximately 0.53p daily charge.

Scigal_2

HI, thanks. Im about to leave the office to go home, but quickly wanted to add they said they didnt know who the sdriver was. and the driver/permit holder and the RK are not the same person. The RK does not work for this company


will catch up as soon as I get home. thank you

Coupon-mad

Scigal wrote: »

HI, thanks. Im about to leave the office to go home, but quickly wanted to add they said they didnt know who the sdriver was. and the driver/permit holder and the RK are not the same person. The RK does not work for this company.

They really should never have tried this one for court as they can ONLY pursue the driver and you have no lawful requirement to help them in that regard.

Scigal_2

Hopefully the judge will throw it out and the OH wont have to appear in court