Notice to owner

kop1te

On the 18/3/2014 The driver forgot to pay to park at a private car park the driver uses all of the time in Swindon. Normally costs £3.50 a day. The Driver was issued a PCN by Minster Baywatch for a £85 fine.

Having read these forums The keeper decided to wait for the follow up letter. The keeper has now received a letter posted on the 3/6/2014 which says it's a Notice to Owner from Parking Collection Services (PCS). The fine has now risen to £140. Is this the letter they should have sent me between 29 and 56 days? And is PCS the PPC the keeper sends his appeal to?

Having read much of this forum I plan to send the standard appeal letter with an addition of pointing out that they have contacted me outside of 56 days. Is that the correct course of action?

Sorry for the questions, just paranoid I've missed something.

Thanks

Redx

the question is , did you read the top sticky thread for newbies at the top of this parking forum ? (as its the only one you needed to read , carefully)

if you had, you would know that Minster Baywatch are your ppc and so Minster Baywatch should have sent an NTK or NTO to yourself and only if they are trying to adhere to POFA 2012 so check to see if pofa 2012 is mentioned

if they are not adhering to pofa 2012 then they can only pursue the driver , if they knew who it was (so dont tell them if you can avoid it)

any NTK should come from Minster Baywatch and clearly hasnt , the people chasing you now are debt collectors , of which there is a large post regarding debt collectors in that NEWBIES thread

any NTK would have stated a maximum of £100 under the BPA CoP , so again its not from Minster

so clearly they have issued an NTD (windscreen ticket) and then not issued an NTK , so no the paperwork you received is NOT an NTK , its a debt collection letter , meaning they have gone to debt collection and not followed the BPA CoP

so I would send the template letter as RK (if you are the RK on the V5C) and also complain to the BPA AOS compliance team that Minster have put this straight to debt collection and not followed the COP allowing the RK to appeal , plus the charges are now over the BPA maximum allowed due to it being given to debt collectors who have added their own debt collection charges on top

treat this new letter as an NTK , but your appeal goes to Minster and ignore PCS

you should also be complaining to the landowner for cancellation, as well as the BPA and maybe the DVLA too

Dee140157

Just to double check, when you say you were issued a PCN by Minster Baywatch, you are referring to a windscreen ticket and not something that came through the post? (if it came through post then that was the NTK)

kop1te

Dee140157 wrote: »

Just to double check, when you say you were issued a PCN by Minster Baywatch, you are referring to a windscreen ticket and not something that came through the post? (if it came through post then that was the NTK)

Yes the PCN from Minster Baywatch was on the windscreen of the car.

kop1te

Redx wrote: »

the question is , did you read the top sticky thread for newbies at the top of this parking forum ? (as its the only one you needed to read , carefully)

if you had, you would know that Minster Baywatch are your ppc and so Minster Baywatch should have sent an NTK or NTO to yourself and only if they are trying to adhere to POFA 2012 so check to see if pofa 2012 is mentioned

if they are not adhering to pofa 2012 then they can only pursue the driver , if they knew who it was (so dont tell them if you can avoid it)

any NTK should come from Minster Baywatch and clearly hasnt , the people chasing you now are debt collectors , of which there is a large post regarding debt collectors in that NEWBIES thread

any NTK would have stated a maximum of £100 under the BPA CoP , so again its not from Minster

so clearly they have issued an NTD (windscreen ticket) and then not issued an NTK , so no the paperwork you received is NOT an NTK , its a debt collection letter , meaning they have gone to debt collection and not followed the BPA CoP

so I would send the template letter as RK (if you are the RK on the V5C) and also complain to the BPA AOS compliance team that Minster have put this straight to debt collection and not followed the COP allowing the RK to appeal , plus the charges are now over the BPA maximum allowed due to it being given to debt collectors who have added their own debt collection charges on top

treat this new letter as an NTK , but your appeal goes to Minster and ignore PCS

you should also be complaining to the landowner for cancellation, as well as the BPA and maybe the DVLA too

Thanks for all of your help, as a newbie it is all a little confusung

I tried to read and understand it all but struggled to understand it, so any help is gratefully received.

Redx

send your template appeal letter to MINSTER BAYWATCH , also mentioning that as no NTK arrived within 56 days you as RK are not responsible for this pcn invoice under POFA 2012 regulations (as you mentioned in your opening post)

complain to the BPA and to the DVLA due to no NTK arriving and it having been sent direct to Debt Collectors for collection without any chance of being afforded an appeal in the usual manner

also complain to the landowner to get it cancelled

ignore the debt collectors letters , but copy them and give to the BPA AOS team for investigations

do not mention the windscreen ticket at all as you are appealing as RK

Coupon-mad

kop1te wrote: »

And is PCS the PPC I send my appeal to?

Having read much of this forum I plan to send the standard appeal letter with an addition of pointing out that they have contacted me outside of 56 days. Is that the correct course of action?

Yes and yes - you can also send a copy to Minster Baywatch (the PCS letter is their attempt at a NTK but it's not compliant).

kop1te

I am now at the POPLA appeal stage and looking to draft my appeal.

I think these are the main points:-

A parking Charge of £140 is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
The NTK (NTO in this case) was not sent between 29 and 56 days so is not compliant.
The car park signs indicate a parking charge of £85 for non-compliance, I assume this means the signs are not compliant?

Is there anything else I should also be focusing on? I have read loads of other POPLA appeals but cannot find any that are the same situation as mine. In particular I am struggling to find a paragraph regarding the NTK not being sent within the correct timescales.

kop1te

I have found the paragraph now.....

How is this so far?


Dear POPLA
Address

My Deatils
PCN No.
Issued.
Reg.
Todays Date

18.07.14

I wish to appeal against the PCN notice on the following grounds.

1) The notice to keeper was sent outside the allotted 56 day time frame
screen ticket issued 18.03.2014
NTK issued 03.06.2014
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeperis fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Noticeis to be relied upon to establish liability it must, as with any statutoryprovision, comply with the Act.
As the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued and asregistered keeper I cannot be held liable.

2) The charge is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.
In my appeal and for this charge to be justified a full breakdown of the costs ParkingCollection Services/Minster Baywatch has suffered as a result of the car beingparked at the car park is required and should add up to £140.00.

3) Proprietary Interest
The driver does not believe that Parking Collection Services\Minster Baywatchhas demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legalpossession which would give Parking Collection Services\Minster Baywatch anyright to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third partycustomers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, Parking CollectionServices\Minster Baywatch lack of title in this land means they have no legalstanding to allege trespass or loss, if that is the basis of their charge
The driver believes there is no contract with the landowner/occupier thatentitles them to levy these charges and therefore has no authority to issueparking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shiftsto Parking Collection Services\Minster Baywatch. The driver expects ParkingCollection Services\Minster Baywatch to prove that they are not in breach ofsection 7.1 of the BPA code.

Dee140157

The main reasons for appeal to POPLA are
1. No genuine pre-estimate of loss (GPEOL)
2. Signage
3. No Contract with landowner to pursue charges in their own name at court
4. No proprietary interest in the land
5. Unlawful Penalty Charge

So use the templates linked from post 3 finding a windscreen one.

As for the NTK you have to state that this was not compliant. These are the key words. Look at section 8 of this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted and pick out the part which makes the NTK non-complaint and copy this is as the reason it was such.

At the moment your appeal is far too short. Do look at the examples, they are all. Much longer. Don't miss out things apart from ANPR which you don't think apply to you. They probably do. It's up to the PPC to disprove, not you to prove.

Redx

just find a recent 2014 popla appeal and adapt it to suit your case

by all means add the points but dont lose sight of the fact that these appeals will win on other issues so concentrate on them, a simple copy and paste into notepad from a non-anpr 2014 appeal cannot be that hard

ps:- edit your posts like post #1 to say THE DRIVER, not referring to yourself at all

pps:- it was PCS that sent the charge of £140 , not the PPC. the PPC would have issued one for say £85 so it is their NTO or NTK that should have the full value of the charge that isnt the gpeol (not the later one issued by the debt collectors). this figure should be on the original NTD windscreen notice and is on the signage you referred to. that signage may comply to the BPA CoP but I am not convinced any or many do from any PPC