Old Parking Fines

gangies

I have just received a request for an alleged parking contravention on a retail park in January 2012. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I always simply informed the company of that fact and told them I had no obligation to disclose who might have been. The new Freedom of Information Act (2012) - which came into force in October 2012 - would now oblige me to pass on that information were such a contravention to take place today. Does anyone know if this new statute can be used retrospectively. My gut feeling is that it can't but don't want to continue that defence if it is no longer a legal option. By the way I should also say that I have heard nothing regarding this alleged offence until now for more than a year. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

The_Slithy_Tove

gangies wrote: »

Does anyone know if this new statute can be used retrospectively.

No, it can't.

Folkiedave

I wonder if this is a debt that has been "sold on" to a debt company?

These are often passed on at £0.01 in the £.

Either way, simply ignore.

Coupon-mad

gangies wrote: »

I have just received a request for an alleged parking contravention on a retail park in January 2012. As I was not the driver of the vehicle I always simply informed the company of that fact and told them I had no obligation to disclose who might have been.

The new Freedom of Information Act (2012) - which came into force in October 2012 - would now oblige me to pass on that information were such a contravention to take place today.

Does anyone know if this new statute can be used retrospectively. My gut feeling is that it can't but don't want to continue that defence if it is no longer a legal option. By the way I should also say that I have heard nothing regarding this alleged offence until now for more than a year. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Wow that's late but your understanding is wrong and the Act is wrongly stated too. AND this is not a FINE by any stretch of the imagination!

Correction:

''The (fairly new) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 would NOT oblige you to pass on the driver's details''...of course it doesn't!

All you need to do is reply as keeper saying 'you are joking, sling your hook' or words to that effect. Or ignore it.

Which scammer has written this letter?

gangies

Thanks for correcting the name of the Act Coupon-mad but I do know that this is not a fine and didn't mean to imply that I thought it was. Can you tell me what part of my understanding is in wrong? Schedule 4 (I think) of the Act seems to make it quite clear that the registered keeper now has a duty make this information available or be responsible for the debt him or her self. I would also be much obliged if you could elaborate upon why the Act doesn't oblige me to pass on the driver's details. Is it simply a principle of common law that new laws cannot apply retrospectively or is there some other reason. The letter was by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd by the way if that helps.

Coupon-mad

In your case, yes, you can rely on the fact this was early 2012 and it is a principle of common law that new laws cannot apply retrospectively.

If you get a fake PCN now, however, you need to know NOTHING MUCH HAS CHANGED!

In the POFA 2012 it says that if the driver is not known then the keeper can be held liable (if certain statutory provisions are met). So what? The POFA 2012 didn't give fake PCNs any more legality or authority than before, not at all. And it does NOT say that a keeper has to state who was driving, why would a keeper do that when they can appeal to POPLA and win in their own right (England/Wales only) without ever naming the driver?

You probably are unaware that we win 100% of POPLA appeals on here. And people are best protected when they don't name the driver, as there's so much more for a PPC to have done wrong under POFA 2012 in trying to jump thru various hoops to establish 'keeper liability'.

If you simply read the old link (pre POFA) under the 'PPC Letter Chains' sticky thread up there near the top of page one of this forum, you should find lots of still-working links, as examples of the well-known and laughable DRP and Zenith letter chain. People have ignored it for years.

Please just search the forum for 'Recovery' to find all the other threads about DRP letters because we have this fairly pointless discussion with a couple of newbies every single day (pointless discussion because it's easy to search for similar threads, and because the sticky threads already cover all this).

IGNORE THEM or send them a letter telling them to cease and desist with this harassment or you will report them for breach of the CSA Code of Practice, since as registered keeper you are not liable.

fisherjim

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]
I have a full set of scrap paper from them and their sister company Zenith.

They will probably try it on a few more times and give up.

gangies

Thanks for your detailed reply Coupon-mad. I am fully aware of most of the other defences against fake as well as legal PCN's and have successfully defended both my wife and her sister against such claims both bogus and excessive in the past. So far as this current thread is concerned I only really wanted to confirm that new laws couldn't be applied retrospectively and why.

I have of course read a substantial number of the older threads concerning such attempts to enforce private parking tickets previously which is why I have, until now, both replied to and subsequently ignored the earlier threatening letters.

I am sorry you consider me a newbie and find my enquiry pointless. However, it occurs to me that DRP Ltd and probably many other debt collectors are beginning a new round of approaches and using the 2012 Act as an attempt to intimidate people and persuade them that the earlier threads no longer have any validity. As a consequence, as much for the sake of others as well as myself, who might have also received a similar new demand related to a historic claim, I was seeking informed and enlightened confirmation that this Act did nothing to harm their (my) case in this one respect.

I therefore trust (and hope you will agree) that others who have read our brief exchange of messages will themselves feel more confident and willing to ignore these new demands should they receive them.

Thanks again for your response

The_Slithy_Tove

gangies wrote: »

I am sorry you consider me a newbie and find my enquiry pointless. However, it occurs to me that DRP Ltd and probably many other debt collectors are beginning a new round of approaches and using the 2012 Act as an attempt to intimidate people and persuade them that the earlier threads no longer have any validity. As a consequence, as much for the sake of others as well as myself, who might have also received a similar new demand related to a historic claim, I was seeking informed and enlightened confirmation that this Act did nothing to harm their (my) case in this one respect.

If you, or anyone else, gets any correspondence for a pre-October 2012 parking event which mentions PoFA, then complaints need to be raised with the BPA and DVLA. Even though the PPC will claim it's an error in their system (i.e. they will be lieing, so nothing new there), the more complaints the better.