UKPC: Notice to keeper potentially flawed. Some feedback please!

Mr_Clive

Hello good people of MSE land,

Challenging private parking companies using contract law has been discussed at great length, but I may have a new and different angle.

I believe the Notice To Keeper document issued for ANPR offences does not comply with the relevant legislation i.e. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. My reasoning is as follows:

1. A violation captured via ANPR results in an immediate Notice To Keeper.
2. The Notice To Keeper is issued in accordance with section (9) of the act.
3. Section (9)(2)(f) states the Notice To Keeper must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under the Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
4. (9)(4)(b) and (9)(6) together define the 'given date' as being two days after the notice was posted.

Now, the key thing here is the 'given' date. The Notice To Keeper issued by UKPC contains only one date, and that is the 'Date Of Notice'. The wording relating to the 28 day period simply states 'If payment is not received within 28 days, further debt recovery costs will be incurred, as detailed on our car park signage'

The main thrust of my challenge is that the act clearly states that the keeper must be warned that the 28 days begins the day after the given date, yet the notice gives no information how to calculate this time period. There is no posting date on the notice (this would enable the 'given date' to be calculated) nor is there specific wording to draw attention to when the timer starts ticking for the 28 days. There is absolutely no way to determine the reference date for the 28 days.

If the notice is indeed flawed, then it is a nullity and is essentially shredder fodder. Also, although I am not totally sure of this, wouldn't all the people who have made payment on the basis of one of these flawed notice be due a refund??

Can anyone with a better legal brain than mine find a flaw with this? The actual text of the act (rather than my paraphrasing above) can be found here:

w w w . l e g i s l a t i o n . g o v . u k / u k p g a / 2 0 1 2 / 9 / s c h e d u l e / 4 / e n a c t e d

Sorry for posting the link using double spacing but as a newbie I am not allowed to post links!

Can someone please take the time to sanity check the above - feedback would be appreciated.

Clive

Mr_Clive

Its all gone quiet....

** BUMP **

Dee140157

That probably suggests something. If anybody thought there was mileage in the idea you might have got a discussion.

I personally don't really understand. But then I am slow on the uptake and need to process for a while before I get it. And as yet I haven't got this and I'm sorry to say, until I feel others give it merit, I probably won't bother trying.

Probably not the response you want, but an honest one.

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree with your post, for those PPCs which don't transcribe the wording of paragraph 9 properly (and that's lots of them!). Trouble is IMHO there is no mileage in refunds for idiots who paid:

If the notice is indeed flawed, then it is a nullity and is essentially shredder fodder. Also, although I am not totally sure of this, wouldn't all the people who have made payment on the basis of one of these flawed notice be due a refund??

No-one would order a refund, not even the DVLA. But cases could be won at POPLA - and even court - on that basis, yes. They often are won on NTK flaws and the one you have highlighted looks relevant to UKPC, and others.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver

I bet there are a few that breach 9(2)(f) so many thanks for highlighting a date that hadn't been scrutinised much until now. Interesting - I might use that!

bazster

The only way anyone is going to get a refund after paying against a duff NtK is to sue the PPC. The trouble is, we're talking about people who were sufficiently dumb and/or supine to pay in the first place, they will not be scouring the internet searching for ways to fight back. So how do they find out that they could fight back, and where do they obtain the cojones to do so?

Mr_Clive

Coupon-Mad - thanks for you opinion on (9)(2)(f). I'll post how I get on with my challenge.

bazster - Irrespective of whether people have been stupid enough to part with money, if the NTK is duff then they are entitled to a refund, and if that is not forthcoming then I would think it could be dealt with by way of the small claims court. They key here is proving beyond doubt that the NTK is flawed. Someone would have to take it all the way and get a judgement to set a precedence.

Umkomaas

Someone would have to take it all the way and get a judgement to set a precedence.

Same as Mr Beavis, but from a different angle!

bazster

Mr_Clive wrote: »

bazster - Irrespective of whether people have been stupid enough to part with money, if the NTK is duff then they are entitled to a refund, and if that is not forthcoming then I would think it could be dealt with by way of the small claims court. They key here is proving beyond doubt that the NTK is flawed. Someone would have to take it all the way and get a judgement to set a precedence.

Evidently you didn't read my post. I know they would have to sue to get a refund, I already said that. The points you seem to have missed are (i) how are you going to inform them of this and (ii) since they are clearly stupid and/or spineless how are you going to persuade them to do it?

We very, very rarely get people coming here saying "I've paid, can I get my money back?". It does happen, but not often.

Mr_Clive

Just heard from POPLA who informed me that UKPC cancelled the ticket before it went to adjudication. Still awaiting formal notification from UKPC with the reason why it was cancelled. No doubt some bull starting with "Without admitting liability and out of the goodness of our hearts......blag blah blah"

Happy days!

Coupon-mad

Nice result!