trethowans solicitors letter

Coupon-mad

megthedog wrote: »

Spoke to PALS. Said car parking nothing to do with them - write to security.

But it is to do with them if the car was following/with the relative in the ambulance who had a heart attack & they were unsure whether she would live or die. Have you not seen the successes linked in the 'Successful Complaints about PPCs' sticky thread - including PALS getting Hospital Facilities Managers to cancel fake PCNs?

You need to get more assertive over this complaint as there is NO POPLA, nothing else ahead but court if Trethowans are involved. UNLESS you persuade PALS/the Hospital to cancel it. Has the person appealed on the slip provided on the Trethowans letter/ticket and written a letter explaining the circumstances? I would if it meant avoiding a small claim case v Trethowans (can be beaten, but stressful!).

megthedog

Reply from Trethowans reads

The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 provides our client with the right to recover the amount outstanding from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle, in the absence of you naming the driver.
We can confirm that this right is enforceable as the conditions specified under Schedule 4 have been met. If you feel that there is a specific requirement that we have not complied with then please provide us with the details of this.
We have attached a copy of the notice and photographs for your records.
In the circumstances please provide us with the driver's details within 7 days of the date of this letter to avoid further action being taken against you as the registered keeper.
yours faithfully

ANY SUGGESTIONS PLEASE

waamo

Personally I would name the driver then get the driver to appeal to the hospital.

It might be worth contacting the local press too,

ColliesCarer

OP says ticket was issued 25/2/14 - need to clarify whether this was originally a windscreen ticket or a postal PCN?

Coupon-mad

I would not name the driver because a Hospital ticket followed by a Trethowans letter does NOT tick the boxes for a NTK under POFA 2012 so the keeper WAS NOT and IS NOT liable if they were not driving. Trethowans could 'try' to take it to court but without invoking the law they refer to, in certain documents in good time, they are stuffed as far as pinning it on the keeper is concerned. And the keeper does not have to name the driver.

I would reply (by snail mail, all typed formal letters as replies) starting by saying that the keeper WAS NOT and IS NOT liable if they were not driving. Add that you (the keeper) will report them to the SRA if they continue to adduce a law which does not apply because they have not issued a Schedule 4 of the POFA compliant 'Notice to keeper'. If they wanted to invoke POFA 2012 it would be a simple matter of the right documentation served in the right timescales - they have failed. There is no keeper liability so you invite them to retract that statement about POFA 2012 pretty sharpish and cancel the PCN. And by the way, the keeper should state that they are aware that a keeper is under no obligation to name the driver so any threats of a Norwich Pharmacal Order will be treated with the contempt they deserve. To finish, it is confirmed that they are pursuing the wrong defendant; the keeper was not driving at the time & can prove it by way of his clock card at work and a Statement of truth as part of any court witness statement, if Trethowans persist.

However because this is all being pointed out clearly now, before court, finish by saying that if they do try a small claim then the keeper will apply for his costs/expenses/postage and lost earnings at £90 per day because to pursue the wrong defendant - adducing an Act which does not apply due to their own failure to serve a compliant NTK within the prescribed timeframe - would be vexatious and wholly unreasonable harassment.

megthedog

Reply from Trethowans reads

The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 provides our client with the right to recover the amount outstanding from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle, in the absence of you naming the driver.
We can confirm that this right is enforceable as the conditions specified under Schedule 4 have been met. If you feel that there is a specific requirement that we have not complied with then please provide us with the details of this.
We have attached a copy of the notice and photographs for your records.
In the circumstances please provide us with the driver's details within 7 days of the date of this letter to avoid further action being taken against you as the registered keeper.
yours faithfully.............

ANY SUGGESTIONS?? PLEASE

They say it's for 'Breach of Contract'

Coupon-mad

We can confirm that this right is enforceable as the conditions specified under Schedule 4 have been met. If you feel that there is a specific requirement that we have not complied with then please provide us with the details of this.

I have already said what to say, above, as they don't send anything resembling a Notice to Keeper.

Annie1960

megthedog wrote: »

Reply from Trethowans reads

The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 provides our client with the right to recover the amount outstanding from you as the registered keeper of the vehicle, in the absence of you naming the driver.
We can confirm that this right is enforceable as the conditions specified under Schedule 4 have been met. If you feel that there is a specific requirement that we have not complied with then please provide us with the details of this.
We have attached a copy of the notice and photographs for your records.
In the circumstances please provide us with the driver's details within 7 days of the date of this letter to avoid further action being taken against you as the registered keeper.
yours faithfully.............

ANY SUGGESTIONS?? PLEASE

They say it's for 'Breach of Contract'

Coupon-mad has just given you the suggestions you need. You would do well to follow her advice.

Guys_Dad

You may want to read the guidelines to the POFA 2012 Act. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Now these are only the guidelines and not the act itself. It deals predominantly with PPCs who are members of the BPA/IPC or similar.

The relevant words in the guidelines for those who are not (in relation to appeals) are

15.3 Landholders who are not members of an ATA are not required to subscribe to an appeals process, so any disputes or appeals will normally be dealt with by the Courts if they cannot be resolved informally between the parties.

They do, however, as said above, have to follow the other relevant parts of POFA 2012 to be compliant and to invoke Keeper Liability. Courts, however, have been known to be "relaxed" about some of the technicalities of compliance!

nigelbb

Courts have only been 'relaxed' about POFA compliance when it's clear the keeper & driver are one & the same. I know of no case where the keeper has lost when the NTK is not compliant & they can prove that they were not the driver.