some help pcn challenge

eddy1

Hi All


further to this case
received final notice today from the wonderful PPC I am involved with, if not paid within 14 days will refer matter to solicitors to commence legal proceedings.


recent posts have been to ignore this type of letter, is that still advisable


I have carried out all previous advice given
should I not write to this PPC to inform them of my actions re DVLA, IOC, and Trading standards


or is this wasting my time.


again if solicitors letter comes, what should be the response


any comments welcome


edd

Coupon-mad

No-one tells you to ignore a Letter before Claim from the actual PPC. You should robustly respond to it - in particular if they are trying to hold the keeper liable (and that keeper was NOT the same person as the driver who appealed earlier) then your robust response should point out that the NTK isn't compliant so they cannot win the case. See 'LBCCC Fightback' - one of the forum stickies collated by Crabman near the top, that's how to reply to a LBC. Looks better in a court situation if you have made efforts to respond.

eddy1

Hi Coupon mad


apologies for the error, they are not referring the issue to solicitors they are referring it to Morgan Knightly & Co, whom I now know are not solicitors, but a debt collection agency, it just states that they are referring it to them to commence legal proceedings, hence my confusion about who they are.


it is also not an LBC, and yes I did read and will await other letters


in meantime have complained to dvla, trading standards and ICO re this issue


regards


thanks again


eddy

Coupon-mad

OK if not a LBC then ignore it - sorry it read like an LBC from the post above.

eddy1

Hi have just read the IPC Cop
it states;


It will only be deemed necessary to request the keeper details from DVLA when the driver is unknown or not sufficiently clear, and delaying such an application would prevent the creditor from providing the Notice to Keeper within the statutory period.


they will obviously use the not sufficiently clear argument in this case I would imagine to determine reasonable cause


however I believe writing to them and challenging a PCN is making it clear who was the driver I should think, without using the words "I was the driver" unfortunately never kept letter as was not involved with issue at this time


any thoughts


eddy1

Dee140157

It was sufficiently clear as they wrote back!

eddy1

Hi Dee
Yes I thought that, the wording is quite ambiguous in these cop,s
Deliberately so in my opinion
Thanks
Eddy

Coupon-mad

eddy1 wrote: »

Hi have just read the IPC Cop
it states;

It will only be deemed necessary to request the keeper details from DVLA when the driver is unknown or not sufficiently clear, and delaying such an application would prevent the creditor from providing the Notice to Keeper within the statutory period.

they will obviously use the not sufficiently clear argument in this case I would imagine to determine reasonable cause

however I believe writing to them and challenging a PCN is making it clear who was the driver I should think, without using the words "I was the driver" unfortunately never kept letter as was not involved with issue at this time.

So the IPC CoP has got it right IMHO. The bit in red is something PPCs trip up on - they don't issue a NTK when they must!

And you don't want to say that the driver was made clear...best not to argue that!

Dee140157

C-m your last response confused me now and i think it will eddy1 too.

Since he has already appealed and lost, this is about a complaint that they asked for keepers details when they knew who the driver was. The argument is exactly that it was sufficiently clear so they and no cause to go after the keeper, who ended up appealing this ticket as well and losing.

I see what you mean about them doing the right thing in sending NTK to establish keeper liabiility which most PPCs don't do. But it is precisely because they wrote back to the driver eddy1 is complaining about the rejected keeper appeal.

It's all very confusing!

eddy1

correct dee


I believe they thought that time would be running out, so they requested details to go after the keeper, because driver forgot to send back ticket. the bait was taken unbeknown to owner who appealed 3 times including IAS, but with a story, hence failure.
now more clued up complaining to dvla, ICO and trading standards.
incidentally ICO request that a complaint (in this case about keeper details being requested without reasonable cause) be made to the organisation first, e.g. PPC. so not sure of response from them on this matter.


the saga continues
eddy