NTK letter issued 78 days after ticket

blufink

No mention of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) either on the Parking Ticket or in the NTK letter.

From what I've read, does this mean that if the keeper wanted to he could simply write to the issuer (Total Car parks) pointing this out and telling them the keeper isn't paying and isn't telling them who the driver was?

Further complication (or get-out) is that the keeper of the car at the time the ticket was issued subsequently sold the car (to me) and no longer lives at the address that TOTAL have written to (which happens to be my address too).

I opened the letter which was addressed to him because the former owner is a close relative of mine.

So, as the former owner no longer lives here and I surely have no duty to inform TOTAL where he now lives, are they knackered anyway(to use a legal term)?

esmerobbo

Was this an ANPR or a screen charge?

Stroma

is this England or Wales ?

blufink

It was a 'Parking Notice' attached to the windscreen of the car. The 'offence' took place in England.

Thanks for your help.

HO87

Given that in these circumstances they have just 56 days within which to serve the NtK (keeper at the time of the parking event) they are way out of whack with the requirements of POFA to pursue them and can only pursue the driver - fat chance of that I suspect. Looks like they are stymied.

Just to confuse the situation you could undoubtedly arrange for your close relative to appeal (as the keeper at the time of the event) using a guided appeal from here, obtain a POPLA code and secure a win there. That will have cost TCP even more and will guarantee the matter dies.

blufink

It would be all but impossible for them to chase the driver because he/she had borrowed the car that day and there is no way his/her details would be volunteered by the former keeper (who they would have extreme difficulty finding in any event!).

Am I right in thinking that our options are;

1. I could write back (as the new keeper) to say that the former keeper no longer lives here so 'good luck with finding him'

2. The former keeper, (if I could locate him/her) could write back saying that he/she has no intention of telling them who was driving, and remind them that because of the delay in their writing, under POFA 2012, there is no obligation of the keeper to give them that info.

3. The former keeper could appeal, go to Popla and win because of the delay in the NTK arriving?

Point 3 would involve TCP in some expense but me in some time in constructing a case and delivering it.

Cheerrs

Coupon-mad

Yep all of those are options, as well as ignoring the NTK and the old keeper only responding to a court letter - but we don't recommend that as POPLA is so easy to win in most cases, stops the barrage of debt collector letters all next year!

2 and 3 are pretty much the same thing because the PPC would have to reply and cough up a POPLA code. If you want them to do that then make sure the response is headed up 'appeal' and asks for a POPLA code if they reject.

You can handle this and just put the old keeper's name to the letters, as long as he/she agrees. Good practice at 'POPLA written appeal' stage for you in case you ever get one!

blufink

I am going to reply to them via the 'appeal' section of their website. I'm simply going to say the keeper at the time no longer lives here (and he doesn't).

Should I also mention that I know their NTK is out of time meaning they have no legal right to pursue the keeper or demand he/she tell them the name of the driver? Or, should I keep that for another time/place?

HO87

Why involve yourself? Frankly, you seem set on overcomplicating the situation. The problem is that you have opened the letter and can't simply put it back in the post marked "Not known at this address" unless you also mark it as "opened in error" which will just be interpreted as being "didn't like the contents". The issue is that the document has been properly served (in terms of being delivered to the address held by the DVLA) within the requirements of POFA and rather than trying to be too clever it would be better for the "keeper" to appeal - as he is entitled to do (he is under no obligation whatsoever to identify the driver), obtain a rejection from TCP and then go to POPLA - where a win is, dare I say it, pretty much guaranteed if you follow the advice here (we continue to maintain a 100% record of success at POPLA with our guided appeals). Ducking and diving in the way you suggest is likely to see your close relative being pursued as the keeper regardless of the fact that the NtK was served out of time.