Ukpc & dr+

shredx81

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Errr come come now Shredx81

The posts are all still all there you know - they haven't been shredded

That's how I read them. It was also later in the thread that it was understood to be a window ticket.
The focus of advice in naming the driver appears to be to reset the procedure.

bod1467

shredx81 wrote: »

The focus of advice in naming the driver appears to be to reset the procedure.

That is ONE purpose. But when it is a lease/hire/company car the prime purpose is to take the focus away from the leaser/hirer/company, as these can often simply pay PCNs and then (try to) reclaim the PCN cost plus an admin charge.

shredx81

bod1467 wrote: »

That is ONE purpose. But when it is a lease/hire/company car the prime purpose is to take the focus away from the leaser/hirer/company, as these can often simply pay PCNs and then (try to) reclaim the PCN cost plus an admin charge.

Noted. With a larger firm, the correspondence may have been dealt with above the head of the employee but the driver here is fortunate enough to work for a smaller firm, have been able to intercept the correspondence & never be in any professional difficulty with their employer. Thanks.

Redx

bod1467 wrote: »

That is ONE purpose. But when it is a lease/hire/company car the prime purpose is to take the focus away from the leaser/hirer/company, as these can often simply pay PCNs and then (try to) reclaim the PCN cost plus an admin charge.

also, the above quote was implied in the following posts including one by me, where the objective was to get DR+ and the PPC to focus on the driver and not the RK or company

posts 2 9 10 11 13 18 21 so I think its fair to say that page one of this thread was trying to get you to see what bod1467 mentioned above, the windscreen ticket versus resetting the clock was a secondary ploy but in this case would not work due to the windscreen ticket , leaving the primary objective of making the driver responsible the reason for naming him (or her)

I hope this is clear now ? ie:- there are 2 possible reasons for the advice, but generally with lease or hire or company cars we recommend the driver get the focus switched onto themselves and away from the RK or hirer or company

shredx81

Noted. Thanks

Coupon-mad

shredx81 wrote: »

Noted. With a larger firm, the correspondence may have been dealt with above the head of the employee but the driver here is fortunate enough to work for a smaller firm, have been able to intercept the correspondence & never be in any professional difficulty with their employer. Thanks.

But if UKPC decided to get litigious next year or the year after and send out court claims to old cases that were ignored in 2014 - then the court claim would go to the company - and it would be too late to pass it to the driver. Not many firms would be happy about this. But it's their own fault if they haven't bothered to find out their legal position after POFA2012 which was a very relevant piece of legislation to any firm with company cars and took effect eighteen months ago, after all! A couple of years ago we used to post 'ParkingEye never do court' (because it's true, they didn't, and people could ignore them and UKPC et al, until the cows came home). Now PE sue people in the courts every day of the week and win most. So never say never, seeing as a small claim can be made up to six years afterwards and firms do change tactics sometimes.

I would just ask the company to send the usual letter discharging liability - the one that the BVRLA recommend to lease car firms or the version on this very forum. It's in the NEWBIES thread in a link, or easily found by searching the keywords 'discharges liability' on this forum board.

Then at least the driver sees and can file every threatogram and will be aware if ever UKPC break the habit of a lifetime and turn the screw. Unlikely but better for the driver to handle this than a company I would think. The driver has missed their chance to appeal though - that was at windscreen ticket stage.

shredx81

Many thanks again for your help!

bod1467

Coupon-mad wrote: »

the one that the BVRLA recommend to lease car firms or the version on this very forum. It's in the NEWBIES thread in a link, or easily found by searching the keywords 'discharges liability' on this forum board.

With all due respect C-M ... I've looked at the NEWBIES thread and I can't see an obvious link relating to wording that lease/hire/company vehicle companies should use to respond to a PPC.

I found this link by searching this forum, but this only goes to a reference page - the link to the BVRLA wording is not accessible.

Care to highlight where in the NEWBIES thread I should be looking?

(I'd like to have such wording ready to fire at my Fleet Manager should the need arise to dispute a parking charge).

Edit: was this post one you were meaning by "or easily found by searching the keywords 'discharges liability' on this forum board"? (Ironic that it is in this thread).

Coupon-mad

Not sure! Maybe I deleted the link when tidying up the NEWBIES thread but I was thinking of zzzLazyDaisy's original template for discharging liability by naming the driver re a postal fake PCN. It was on ordinaryJoe's thread.

bod1467

Found it by searching for ordinaryJoe.

I think I would modify that slightly to give as a template to my Fleet manager.

[PPC Name]
[Insert Address]

[Insert Date]

[Insert the reference quoted on their PCN/NTK]

Dear Sir

Vehicle Registration Number [insert reg number]

I represent the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle.

I am writing to acknowledge the Parking Charge Notice (notice to keeper) [insert date] and to inform you that I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged 'parking event'. Therefore you must pursue the usual keeper of this vehicle, whose details are:

[INSERT NAME]

[INSERT ADDRESS]

Please note: this discharges my obligation as Registered Keeper under PoFA 2012 and any court proceedings will be defended on that basis.
Please note: as this is a company vehicle then the usual keeper may not have been the driver. (Include this?)

Yours faithfully

PRINT NAME