PCN from IG Security

kag8

Hi msa123,

Please could you let me know the outcome of this? I have received a similar parking charge and the picture of the sign/pcn are almost identical to my situation ( I have a thread open).

Apologies for bumping an old thread.

msa123

:eek:

kag8 wrote: »

Hi msa123,

Please could you let me know the outcome of this? I have received a similar parking charge and the picture of the sign/pcn are almost identical to my situation ( I have a thread open).

Apologies for bumping an old thread.

hi sorry for late reply. Only just looked at this again now since a letter from Roxburghe has been received and id just like to know what to do from here?
Until now ive not paid anything and won't be either. I only received the notice to keeper a while ago but never thought anything of it at the time since it came a few months since the date of receiving the PCN.

bazster

Who was driving (you or your brother) and which of you is the registered keeper?

This is important, there may yet be an easy way out of this depending on the answers.

msa123

bazster wrote: »

Who was driving (you or your brother) and which of you is the registered keeper?

This is important, there may yet be an easy way out of this depending on the answers.

brother was driving, but not the registered keeper. My mum is the registered keeper

bod1467

So your MUM received the Notice to keeper and not you - correct?

If yes, and assuming there was no windscreen ticket originally, then SHE can write to the parking company (copy the debt collector) to name (and address) your brother as the driver.

Your brother should then be issued his own PCN, which he can then appeal to the PPC and then to POPLA/IAS (I've not read back through this thread to see whether IG are BPA or IPC members), and thus get this monkey killed off.

msa123

[STRIKE][/STRIKE]

bod1467 wrote: »

So your MUM received the Notice to keeper and not you - correct?

If yes, and assuming there was no windscreen ticket originally, then SHE can write to the parking company (copy the debt collector) to name (and address) your brother as the driver.

Your brother should then be issued his own PCN, which he can then appeal to the PPC and then to POPLA/IAS (I've not read back through this thread to see whether IG are BPA or IPC members), and thus get this monkey killed off.

yes my mum received the NTK, there was a windscreen ticket, does that make a difference?

IG are IPC members I believe, do they have a similar service as popla with bpa members?

bod1467

The fact there was a windscreen ticket means that either:

1. SHE can discharge any liability by naming your brother, but HE can't then appeal to IG as he had his chance at windscreen ticket stage. (If there had not been a windscreen ticket then your brother could have had his own appeals process);

2. SHE can appeal to IAS (the IPC version of POPLA) if she is still in time, although this is very unlikely now.

Of course YOU can handle the appeal for her - it just needs to be in her name. But given the time elapsed since NTK arrived then SHE may well just have to remain in IGNORE mode until and unless IG issue court proceedings/LBA.

msa123

bod1467 wrote: »

The fact there was a windscreen ticket means that either:

1. SHE can discharge any liability by naming your brother, but HE can't then appeal to IG as he had his chance at windscreen ticket stage. (If there had not been a windscreen ticket then your brother could have had his own appeals process);

2. SHE can appeal to IAS (the IPC version of POPLA) if she is still in time, although this is very unlikely now.

Of course YOU can handle the appeal for her - it just needs to be in her name. But given the time elapsed since NTK arrived then SHE may well just have to remain in IGNORE mode until and unless IG issue court proceedings/LBA.

ok thanks for that. If ive understood this right, naming my brother as the driver wont help as there was a windscreen ticket. And because of the time since the NTK was received, she cant appeal to IAS. Does the fact the NTK was received later than 56 days of receiving the windscreen ticket have any relevance now?

So it seems the best thing to do now is continue to ignore until court papers are received, if any. Are IG known for issuing court proceedings at all. Do you know?
once again thanks for your advice,much appreciated

Dee140157

The NtK should be issued no sooner than day 29 and no later than day 56, provided they are trying to invoke Keeper Liability.

Does the NtK mention Keeper Liability and/or the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)?

Exactly how much time has lapsed since you received the NTK?

Coupon-mad

msa123 wrote: »

ok thanks for that. If ive understood this right, naming my brother as the driver wont help as there was a windscreen ticket. And because of the time since the NTK was received, she cant appeal to IAS. Does the fact the NTK was received later than 56 days of receiving the windscreen ticket have any relevance now?

So it seems the best thing to do now is continue to ignore until court papers are received, if any. Are IG known for issuing court proceedings at all. Do you know?
once again thanks for your advice,much appreciated

Yes it is relevant that they failed to serve a NTK in time because your Mum has a perfect defence if they do try court. She simply is NOT liable as they missed the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 (paragraph 8) deadline. And I very much doubt if the wording of the NTK was compliant either. KEEP ALL THE LETTERS, ONE BY ONE, ADDING THEM TO A FILE AND KEEPING THEM FOR UP TO SIX YEARS JUST IN CASE!

I am not aware of that firm being litigious, but IPC members sometimes do try. The first thing your Mum might get that would need to be responded to, would be a Letter before Claim from Gladstones Solicitors (or from the PPC themselves). NOT from a debt collector, you can ignore those or she can write a one-liner telling them 'you are mistaken, I am not liable because I was not the driver and your client has failed to serve a POFA 2012 compliant Notice to Keeper in time for 'keeper liability' So bog off as you are harassing the wrong person in contract law and you are breaching debt collection guidelines by persisting with unwarranted threats.'

Or words to that effect!