District Enforcement Staffordshire Uni

da_rule

4consumerrights wrote: »

District Enforcement are former law students at Staffordshire uni (there were 3, but one director resigned and a new director joined). The company was set up using a local scheme for new business (forget what it is called at the moment) and have extended the contract to 2015.

Oh it's those guys.

4consumerrights wrote: »

District Enforcement's Ntk's do not invoke keeper liability under POFA and so rely on only the driver being pursued.

The problem may be that in responding to a windscreen ticket the Uni may have identified the RK as the diver.

da_rule

I would say that POPLA wouldn't consider it. The rule is one code per PCN. Unfortunately what really needs to happen is that your friend needs to contact them and tell them that he needs a POPLA code for each PCN.

He also needs to be on at the Uni. He needs them to send an email (and copy him in) which explicitly tells them that they have to cancel the PCN as no loss has arisen.

fedupwithitall

The RK has never responded to the PCNs. RKs only contact with them has been regarding the permit (or lack thereof). DE Permit section sent email to RK stating permit application was suspended until representations regarding the tickets were made to a seperate appeal email address (yes obv the same firm!) RK did not use the appeal email address but responded back to permits requesting certain info about authority to suspend. The only statement made by RK with regard to the PCNs was contained in that requested and stated the RK did not accept any wrongdoing and that they should deal with permit seperately from PCNs.

Hope this clarifies the facts a little.

fedupwithitall

@da_rule

yes I agree at this stage. I was just thinking why should the RK have to jump through these hoops over something so obviously the result of admin error.

da_rule

I think this thread is getting a bit messy.

Your friend had Notices to Driver which he, to the company that issued them, denied having done anything wrong in relation to them.

The fact that it was sent to a permits email address and not the appeals email address is a debate that could be had but it will not help. The parking company have chosen to treat it as an appeal (rightly or wrongly). Your friend now needs to go to POPLA and get this sorted. He also needs to contact them and tell them that if they are treating his correspondence with them as appeals then they must comply with the BPA code of conduct and issue 3 separate POPLA codes.

And he needs to be banging doors down at the Uni.

da_rule

fedupwithitall wrote: »

@da_rule

yes I agree at this stage. I was just thinking why should the RK have to jump through these hoops over something so obviously the result of admin error.

He shouldn't. But the Uni seem unwilling to do anything to correct the error.

As I said he needs them to send an email saying that they instruct the parking company, as their agent, to issue a permit immediately and to cancel all PCN's relating to that vehicle immediately.

fedupwithitall

da_rule wrote: »

I think this thread is getting a bit messy.

Your friend had Notices to Driver which he, to the company that issued them, denied having done anything wrong in relation to them.

The PCNs were placed on the vehicle. These were not responded to. The RK then received notices through the post requesting the driver details.

The RK did not respond to these.

The permit section requested the RK either supply the driver information, make representations to appeals or pay the charge. The RK refused to do any of those things, instead responding that the RK denied doing anything wrong.

I am concerned that if the RK starts to communicate with DE or goes down the POPLA route the driver will be identified.

At this point though, it appears there is no other option and if my reading of the issue is right, there is a good chance the POPLA appeal will succeed, whether or not the driver is identified?

da_rule

Well if he's had notices to keeper then no, he will not have to name the driver and there is no way he can be forced to. The advice on here is to never name the driver (except in a few very specific circumstances), and that advice wins at POPLA.

At the end of the day it's your friends call. He needs to clear up the POPLA code issue with the parking company. I would say complain to the BPA but they're not members anymore so kind of pointless. He then needs to appeal to POPLA. If he does nothing then it has been said that this company are active in court so he could wind up there. And all because he won't engage with the process (regardless of whose fault it is that he's in the situation).

4consumerrights

^^^^^^ you need to edit that quote now too - post #19 !!!!

TBH - this thread has been like pulling teeth to extract any modicum of information that can help and I am getting fedupwithallthis!

The PCNs were placed on the vehicle. These were not responded to. The RK then received notices through the post requesting the driver details.

The RK did not respond to these.

The permit section requested the RK either supply the driver information, make representations to appeals or pay the charge. The RK refused to do any of those things, instead responding that the RK denied doing anything wrong.

The notices to keeper are the time to appeal - I HAVE SEEN DE'S notices to keeper before and in fact have called them nothing short of

convoluted and contradictory twaddle - they do not invoke keeper liability under POFA and as stated only the driver can be pursued. THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO NAME THE DRIVER. AND THE APPEAL IS MADE IN THE THIRD PARTY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER.


so a) what was the date on the NtK's - are you still in time to appeal
b) how many FCN's have been appealed
if you haven't appealed the other two - DO SO WITHOUT DELAY.
USE THE TEMPLATE IN NEWBIE THREAD - insist on separate codes or try appealing all three using one - though it sounds as if you haven't made an appeal.

Check the validity of the POPLA code and use IT !

fedupwithitall

The appeal covered all three PCNs and each one was dealt with within the letter that determined each was correctly issued. All three PCN reference numbers are quoted within the appeal decision but only one POPLA code is supplied.

All three PCNs are outside the usual time limit to appeal but DE decided to treat the email to permits as an appeal and deal with it anyway.

So, I am now correct in thinking that the RK needs to respond to DE requesting 2 further codes, after which time RK can then appeal to POPLA on the grounds that;

1) the driver has not been identified (The NtK suggests they can go ahead despite this on the grounds that on the balance of probabilities the RK was the driver);
2) that the charges were incorrectly issued due to the admin error regarding the permit; and
3) that the charge is in any event a penalty dressed up as a contractually agreed term?

Sorry for the confusing thread, it is a lot like me, confused and I am trying not to identify anyone too!