*When* exactly, did Advice re: PCNs change?

sma11person

I'm asking because I know that when I checked the name of a company in here early last year, the advice was still to ignore these letters. Now this board is telling people that the advice changed 18 months ago... why did it change? No offence has been committed, and no damages inflicted on these companies, so why are we expected to spend valuable time defending ourselves against fake invoices that apparently have no legal standing?

We've received one threatening court action if Registered Keeper doesn't reply within 14 days from the date of the letter. Which is risible in itself, given that the letter has taken a week to arrive anyway. Registered Keeper did not use the vehicle on the date in question, and can prove they were elsewhere.

I suspect I'm going to have to reply to this letter, but am genuinely wondering: exactly when did the "ignore" advice change to "reply and defend"? I know that I recall reading these boards during the last year, and the new legislation (the PC's right to ask the RK to pay their "invoice") hadn't changed a thing at that stage.

HO87

It could be summed up in four letters: P.O.F.A.

In other words, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that by way of s.56, Schedule 4 (and subject to their fulfilling various criteria) allows private parking companies (PPC's) to pursue the registered keepers of vehicles involved in alleged parking infringements on private land. It came into force on 1 October 2012. This had come about after PPC's trade association (British Parking Association - BPA) had lobbied Parliament for a change in the law because of the problem they alleged their clients were suffering from trespass and misuse of car parks. All cobblers, of course, because PPC's are, in many respects simply get-rich-quick schemes with the least interest in their so-called clients.

The BPA also assured Parliament that there would be a substantial cut in the numbers of court cases resulting if registered keeper liability (as it came to be known) was enacted and produced a set of figures in support of this assertion. Those figures contained, to use the Churchillian phrase, a number of terminological inexactitudes - in other words they should have started with the words "Once upon a time..." and finished with "...and they all lived happily ever after" because they were a complete fiction. A cynic would undoubtedly describe them as a pack of lies but either way Parliament accepted them and the BPA was granted their wish.

Prior to that PPC's could only satisfactorily proceed against the driver and this was at the heart of the advice given prior to 1/10/12. In 99% of cases the PPC's had no idea who the driver was and had to rely on garrulous and unwitting owners providing that detail for them - "I only parked for 2 minutes..." and "My husband had borrowed the car to drive to the corner shop...". By ignoring all of their strident correspondence you stood greater chance of the whole sorry mess going away - which it did in 99.9% of cases (that's not an idle figure by the way) - out of the 1.4million (or so) DVLA applications made in the year prior to October 2012 only 847 cases were commenced in the county court. That contrasts somewhat with the 1.7 million DVLA keeper enquiries now and the fact that just one PPC has launched over 13,000 cases in an effort to wring even more money out of the system.

The whole game has changed since and unfortunately it took a long time for the original guidance (to ignore) to filter through and its taking equally long for the more recent "don't ignore" advice to work through too.

Some of the PPC's are quite litigious, others are decidedly not but regardless of that they all threaten court. If you were to let us know which of those you are dealing with we can advise you accordingly.

If you could let us know which stage you are at that would also help because with a little further research on the Newbies thread you can get this all to go away and cost the PPC into the bargain (it involves writing two letters and the content is in the thread I've pointed you towards)?

Hope that helps.

sma11person

Our letter is from Parking Eye, and is telling the RK that unless payment is received very soon, they will take RK to court. RK was not the driver, and we don't even recall receiving the original PCN. There was certainly never any sticker on the vehicle.

I've just been reading some older threads to see when all this happened... the change in legislation didn't change a PP's legal standing (still bullies demoing your money for nothing), so am unclear as to why advice changed, but thanks anyway.

Umkomaas

HO87 said that just one single PPC has issued over 13,000 court cases in the past year. Guess which one. Yours I'm afraid.

The PE modus op, generally, is not windscreen ticket-based, rather the use of ANPR cameras sited at the entrance/exit of car parks timing ins and outs.

Advice changed because of the court case scenario and, importantly, the motorist now has an avenue to independent dispute resolution (which is binding on the PPC, but not the motorist) in the shape of POPLA, and we found out how to win at POPLA, and have done so every time for the past year.

The NEWBIES thread will cover most of what you need to do, so regardless of when advice changed, you do need to get on with this now.

da_rule

Whilst the legislation did not change the PPC's standing it now allows them (for any PCN's issued on or after 1/10/12) to pursue the registered keeper. As HO87 said, under the old system the PPC's could only pursue the driver as that was who had committed the trespass or breach of contract.

This new ability to pursue the registered keeper was a trade off, in exchange clamping/vehicle immobilisation on private land became unlawful.

I think it took both the forums and the PPC's a few months to realise what the new Act would mean in practice. And the advice began to change in early 2013 (Feb/March) as PPC's began to pursue claims. Unfortunately, the PPC's can begin a claim for up to 6 years after the alleged incident, I assume you received 'ignore' advice?

sma11person

Thanks, each. We did indeed receive the "ignore" advice.

Right, well, had I known we'd be forced to appeal to sort this lot out, that would have been done. As I said, we don't even recall the original PCN arriving (these things tend to be obvious), and we know that the Registered Keeper was not using the vehicle at the time.

Does any of that make any difference, or not? Sorry to ask those questions again, but I can't find anything elsewhere to help with this, and I just don't *have* unlimited time to trawl though threads to find information. Which is probably the one thing that PE and their ilk are pinning their hopes on.

I'm thinking that a tracked e-mail would serve better than any letter, given that their letter seems to have taken a good week to actually arrive.

da_rule

What stage are things now at? What was the last letter you received (debt collection/letter before claim etc).

Use email if you want, but first class post is deemed, by law, to have arrived 2 working days after you post it regardless if it actually does take a week. Just get a free proof of postage from the post office.

sma11person

This is a Letter Before County Court Claim.

da_rule

As they have not begun proceedings yet you could try to name someone else as the driver (obviously you need to let them know). This may reset the clock and allow you/them to appeal. Parkin companies seem unwilling to do this beyond the 28 limit however, but this limit is not actually set by POFA. I would send a response to the LBCC telling them who the driver was and telling them that this discharges your liability as the registered keeper. I would then put in the a bit about 'if you do continue to pursue me then all claims will be defended' and insist that they send you a compliant LBCC (see the responding to LBCC section in the Newbies sticky thread for exact wording to use).

HO87

@ da_rule Are we suggesting that the OP engage in some - potentially - dodgy dealings? Our advice here is to stick to the rules. Naming someone else as the driver who was not in fact the driver carries with it the risk that it blows up in front of their face if, and it is an "if" it were to go to court. Who wants to be caught out in a lie by a judge?

If the OP is able to genuinely name the driver as someone other than themselves then by all means do so. PE will probably stick to their guns (they impose their own, arbitrary time limits to appeals and rarely move from them).

If that isn't the case, however, I would suggest that the OP dives into the Newbie thread and follows the links to zzzlazydaisy's thread which provides thorough advice on how to respond to a LBCCC. Dealing with it robustly may see any further action stopped in its tracks. Ignoring things completely significantly increases the risk of a PoC dropping through the letterbox - particularly as it is PE - which I'm sure the OP would prefer to avoid.

I have yet to see any version of what PE describe as a LBCCC that complies with the Practice Direction - or any other PPC's come to that.

da_rule

@HO87 nope not suggesting they lie at all. In post 6 the OP says they know the registered keeper was not using the vehicle at the time.