Proof of delivery private parking charge

Coupon-mad

rebeccajw wrote: »

Any similar experience? Parking charge notice received one day outside of the fourteen day period. I have emailed to state and quote the relevant act. Am conscious the wording says that post age is presumed to take two days unless proved otherwise. What constitutes proof? My word is obviously just my word against theirs. I resent them ignoring the proper process.

Thanks.

Arriving by day 15 is OK, as day one is the day after the event (under POFA 2012, if the PPC is invoking it). That's why in the NEWBIES info sticky thread I talk about a NTK arriving by 'day 15'.

Concentrate instead on the usual issues and send a challenge as linked in the 'NEWBIES read this first' sticky thread. Which PPC?

rebeccajw

Thanks it is highviewparking. When I count the days with day one being 21 dec doesn't it I had to Be in receipt of the notice by 3 jan?

Coupon-mad

rebeccajw wrote: »

Thanks it is highviewparking. When I count the days with day one being 21 dec doesn't it I had to Be in receipt of the notice by 3 jan?

Yes - but it won't be the point which wins this for you the POPLA appeal. It is slightly 'splitting hairs' IMHO over a Christmas and New Year period where the DVLA will have been closed/minimal staffing for several of those days. But yes, it is technically late so you could cover it as ONE point of appeal, no need to state when it arrived:

'I have kept the envelope and the NTK was posted second class so clearly it was not important to Highview to comply with the POFA2012 deadline - which you have missed because the NTK was not received by 3rd January. You have posted this letter well after the date of the parking event and there is no 'keeper liability' at all.'

You could add that to the usual appeal points as linked in the Newbies read this first' sticky. Send it sometime this coming week with a date a good few days after 3rd January, to make your point.

Umkomaas

Come on Rebecca, you do need to let go of this date issue, it will not win at POPLA for you. I did say yesterday afternoon that it was wasting time and energy chasing shadows on this. Let it go!

How are you getting on learning about GPEOL, signage and lack of sufficient proprietary interest in the land to issue charges, including to court level? These are far more important (and potent) points for you.

Redx

given that there are THREE bank holidays in that period, where no post arrives, never mind sundays that they do not arrive on either, its hardly going to be a winning issue at the end of the day !

nitpicking wont make this "go away"

stick to the main appeal points that always win at popla !!!

nigelbb

To be fair the Bank Holidays & Sundays are known well in advance so it is the responsibility of the PPC to post the NTK in plenty of time as the measure is elapsed days. If the legislators had intended it to be working days to allow for the incompetence of PPCs over Xmas the law would have been written so.

Redx

yes , I understand all that , BUT , if it came down to a test case and a judge was told there had been 3 bank holidays and 2 sundays making up over a third of the time for notification when there was no post at all, and if he was told it had arrived one day late, does anybody who has any common sense feel that the judge would rule that it was an invalid NTK under those circumstances ?

not only that , would any of us feel comfortable knowing that the whole case rested on that one premise ?

not if you looked at the stronger legal points that umkomaas alluded to

sometimes I feel that people focus so much on these minor points that they lose sight of the bigger picture !

I would liken this to the fact that when Lampard scored that goal that wasnt, the rules say he scored, yet it was ruled out , as was the goal that wasnt when Carroll was in goal at man utd.

there are travesties all the time where rules are not followed, or judges are asked to make a legal ruling , but I for one would definitely NOT rely on this nitpicking over one day , otherwise people would be saying it hadnt arrived (even when it has) and therefore jumping on the bandwagon of saying it hasnt arrived every time they don`t like the contents inside !

or are people always truthful about this ? (not saying the OP isnt truthful, just playing devils advocate)

there is no doubt in my mind that the PPC will reject the appeal on various points, not just that one, we all know they issue charges that are not a gpeol, yet they still do so, they issue court cases without having the legal contract to do so , they issue tickets on public streets yet don`t have the right to do so, do we really think they care about an NTK arriving a day late ? well I don`t for one

yes legislators legislate, yet its usually a test case in front of judges that decide the actual laws

agree with umkomaas on this, the OP is looking for a small technical victory and ignoring the glaring fact that the charge is not a gpeol , or that they may not have a legal contract to issue or chase up tickets, or that the signage is poor and not within BPA rules

sometimes people can be too clever for their own good !

sorry to say

but if the OP wishes to pursue this all the way on such a tenuous technicality I would be very interested in the outcome

nigelbb

Citing a non-compliant NTK is only useful as a defence when the keeper genuinely wasn't the driver & can prove it. Some of the ways that a Notice To Keeper doesn't comply with POFA are open to interpretation but delivering the NTK within the prescribed timescale is not. It's either within time or it wasn't & in this case as it wasn't posted within time & the PPC used a second class stamp so it's definitely not compliant as it was delivered out of time & cannot be used to enforce keeper liability. This is just the same as the Police failing to issue Notice of Intended Prosecution within 14 days so they cannot proceed. The law is the law & the timescale is unarguable.

We don't know the full facts of this case & I have a strong suspicion that the OP is the RK & was the driver so whether the NTK was valid is moot. If a non-compliant NTK is the defence & the motorist is asked directly by the judge "Were you the driver?" then risking prison for perjury would be foolish in the extreme.

rebeccajw

Thanks again all. Do appreciate your time here.

It's not that I'm looking to hark on, so apologies. Was just curious about timing. Not least as I did my response to them same day on email. Mentioning that. So, I guess I have to wait on their rejection and a pools code then state the very good points especially the magic four words and maybe signage too etc. this forum is fab. Unfortunately I am juggling other things and I just didn't get my focus right before my email referencing the charge notice. I did state date it arrived :-( but didn't say who driver was. I'll await more slapped wrists while I get on with my draft popla. Seriously, thanks again :-)

Coupon-mad

You'll be fine! And as well as the magic four words, don't forget ''the PPC don't own the land nor have any assignment of title that would give them the standing to make contracts with drivers nor pursue charges in court in their own name, as they are mere agents. So I require their unredacted landowner contract (blah blah)...''