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

Half_way

Unless someone esle was the driver do not even think about telling unt4ruths, as things can go badly wrong.

As for the old advice being ignore, HO87 has pretty much summed this up.
I would suggest that honesty is the best way forwards here, and that you read the newbies sticky at the top of this forum.
Also while not ignoring the letters from the parking company you should also make a complaint to the car park owner.

Reading your original post, have you had one letter, and this is now the second? does it mention anything about appealing or your time to appeal this has now expired?
If you still have time to appeal ( challenge) the charge then do so.

another quick question Was this an overstay in a car park attached to a supermarket, or other chain store? retail park or other such car park? pub?
Were you a customer at the shop to which this car park serves? - it doesnt matter in the long run if you were/werent but it may help provide extra leverage with the car park owner.

da_rule

@Half_way the letter is a LBCC and the OP has already said that the registered keeper was not the driver. The point about the land owner appeal is worth a shot though.

Half_way

da_rule wrote: »

@Half_way the letter is a LBCC and the OP has already said that the registered keeper was not the driver. The point about the land owner appeal is worth a shot though.

In that case then make sure that the Driver understands the issues ( point them here) and tell them not to worry, but dont ignore etc etc if the original poster knows the driver well then this will be easy.
Same as before be honest.

A little extra information on the car park would also be helpful, as in my previous post.
Its also important to remember that the car parkng company are agents acting for and on behalf of the car park owner, the car park owner is also responsible for the actions of their agents, so despite what they may tell you they have the ability to cancel the tickets/charges, further more if they dont then you may be able to reclaim your costs from them, as they are liable for their agents actions.
If you do decide to reclaim any costs ( ie from submitting an appeal to POPLA) you must be honest, keep a log of the time you spend on it and keep receipts for things such as stamps, and any other such stuff and only claim for that and no more, against the car park owner.

sma11person

Thanks. Car park is one attached to a shop, but serving a small town. All parking in this town is free, although the relatively new supermarkets each have PC notices attached. This PC has only been attached to this car park for a couple of years at most.

The registered keeper was not driving at the time, but is under no obligation to name whoever was driving, and will not, because no crime has been committed. We may have received *one* previous letter from this PE (early last year when the advice was to ignore them), but there has been nothing further from them. They may well have been sent (as claimed), but they haven't been received.

This one struck as odd because of the use of, "will" instead of "may" in relation to court action, so we decided to check it out here. It seems odd that they can claim to have sent these notices, and apparently threaten court action, without ever having any proof that the addressee ever received their communications. Most odd.

The final draft of my challenge is ready to go. Thanks, each. Will keep you updated.

atilla

Why take the stance that the scammer will likely follow through with court?
Naming the driver stops them pursuing the reg keeper. This then allows for the tried and tested appeal process to be followed.

Redx

this issue is not a crime because this was decriminalised years ago

the naming of the driver is there to reset the clock and force PE to issue a new PCN against the driver, which can then be defended at popla, this also means they cannot take the RK to court because if they do all you need to do is point out to the court that the RK has named the driver and under POFA 2012 the RK is no longer liable

there are examples of where PE has been forced to use popla as an ADR to avoid the court case proceeding and then they have lost at popla , so its important to do this before court papers are issued

so the fact that ignore was used over a year ago would no longer matter due to the pcn being issued to the driver, who then uses popla to make the whole thing "go away" at nil cost

otherwise, if court papers were issued the fact that the RK was not driving becomes irrelevant due to POFA 2012 and they will be held liable for the actions of the driver

if you had not ignored it back then , named the driver, then the driver ignored it , the driver would now be in this exact same position but with no ability to reset the clock, so they would have got this LBCCC and possibly been taken to court, especially as PE now issue over 13000 court claims a year I believe

da_rule

As Redx and the OP have said this is not a crime.

But, the changes which came about as a result of the POFA mean that, although the registered keeper cannot be compelled to name the driver, they can be held liable in the drivers place where they don't.

sma11person

Liable for *what*exactly? A scam invoice that has no legal standing?

LBCCC: "You parked in this car park, and you broke our T&Cs (although we haven't told you how or why), so we demand that you pay £xxx or we'll take you to court".

Reply summary: "Oh really? This will be interesting. No other correspondence from yourselves has been received at this address. Stop harassing me or face the consequences... "

I think some people here are missing the point. There is no liability. No offence has been committed, and no charge can be brought.

Redx

you can lead a horse to water ..............................

you are not here for advice, merely to cause an argument

well , good luck with your argument so far in front of a judge, because if you dont "wiseup" fast, you could end up with a CCJ merely due to your "intransigence"

you have been given all the info you needed to know, excellent info I might add, ignore it at your peril

wake up and smell the coffee !

da_rule

I think you may be missing the point, no charges can be brought no, as this is not a criminal matter, it is civil.

And they do have standing (provided their contract with the land owner is properly drafted) as that is what the Protection of Freedom Act establishes.

In terms of liability, I'm afraid there is. The registered keeper can now be held to be liable for either trespass or breach of contract (depending on the claim), again by virtue of POFA.

These parking companies are in court every day, and they do win cases, especially those who do not follow the correct protocols or get help/advice from the forums.