Advice re NTK from PCM (UK) Ltd

EnigmaPart1

*personally* i dont think any of this contract cancellation works

I do however agree that its not worth bother with the IAS as all, however the are certain companies where the use of a service address is an absolute must, where as PCM you can do what you like and you should be ok

Coupon-mad

No-one knows if the contract cancellation will work but reading the Regs, it says you can. It's clear that PPC contracts do not provide the necessary information for a consumer contract (that isn't up for debate, it's a fact). And it does no harm, whereas 'naming the driver' in my view has its pitfalls and could cause future problems.

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No-one knows if the contract cancellation will work but reading the Regs, it says you can. It's clear that PPC contracts do not provide the necessary information for a consumer contract (that isn't up for debate, it's a fact). And it does no harm, whereas 'naming the driver' in my view has its pitfalls and could cause future problems.

However we will indemnify against issues going forward:) and unlike anyone else on any forums we do actually stick our necks on the lines and get our hands dirty.

Who else can say their solution will work for someone and if not a ticket is then paid? and actually have the ability to back up what they are doing.

I appreciate this solution is not for everybody but i think it should be offered up everytime a IPC ticket comes along, simply because it is evidenced that it works.

Its all very well for people to advise what to do (and this applies to any forum), but if things go wrong who is going to pick up the pieces?

AnthonyParkingPerson

Thanks Coupon-mad. As the initial 28 days has passed I don't want to name the driver. I wish to reply on the NtK which is deficient in 2 aspects - failure to provide parking period and failure to specify location. The question I now have is when to notify the parking company of this. Do I wait until after the 28 day period so that they cannot then issue an amended NtK, or do I do I have to do it during the 28 day period. My gut feeling on reading Schedule 4 is to wait until after the 28 days. Then, when they try and claim from me I can state that their NtK was invalid. What do you think?

EnigmaPart1

AnthonyParkingPerson wrote: »

Thanks Coupon-mad. As the initial 28 days has passed I don't want to name the driver. I wish to reply on the NtK which is deficient in 2 aspects - failure to provide parking period and failure to specify location. The question I now have is when to notify the parking company of this. Do I wait until after the 28 day period so that they cannot then issue an amended NtK, or do I do I have to do it during the 28 day period. My gut feeling on reading Schedule 4 is to wait until after the 28 days. Then, when they try and claim from me I can state that their NtK was invalid. What do you think?

Thats fine as your chosen route

However for the sake of repeating myself that will fail quite simply.

But as its PCM i wouldnt lose any sleep over it

AnthonyParkingPerson

Enigma - why would it fail if the notice is invalid? IAS may ignore it but surely it's PCM's problem, not IASs. It's PCM that wuld have to pursue me.

Coupon-mad

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

However we will indemnify against issues going forward:) and unlike anyone else on any forums we do actually stick our necks on the lines and get our hands dirty.

Yes and I do applaud you for it - you know I am certainly not 'against' your service and it's an option for lots of people. I admire what you do. But I am cautious.

Its all very well for people to advise what to do (and this applies to any forum), but if things go wrong who is going to pick up the pieces?

Who would pick up the pieces if in a year's time PTA went bust or you closed the service and went to Oz? Leaving no current manned 'service addresses' for the drivers to be contacted. The PPCs would have six years to get around the problem, and they'd have the driver to pursue (or it would simply need the DVLA to agree to let PPCs get keeper data because the driver was 'uncontactable' all of a sudden). We know the DVLA's view and how pally they are with the BPA and IPC. The ATAs would paint it as a 'problem to overcome' and the DVLA would help them overcome it. Then PPCs could write to the driver c/o the keeper (on the basis most drivers can be conveniently contacted via a keeper) serve court papers 4 years down the line...etc. And the driver has no POFA to fall back on.

AnthonyParkingPerson wrote: »

Enigma - why would it fail if the notice is invalid? IAS may ignore it but surely it's PCM's problem, not IASs. It's PCM that wuld have to pursue me.

Yep that's the case (Enigma means it would fail at IAS but like you, my view is - so what?). IAS may ignore it so don't bother with IAS. It doesn't make the flawed NTK compliant if they try a small claim! And on top of that you can show a Judge that you cancelled the contract on the basis of the new Consumer Contract regs, which are a result of an EU drive to uniformity of information and communication in contracts. OK a Judge may not agree - not been tested yet as these are new Regs - but it gives you two strong points of appeal plus others such as 'no GPEOL' as it's obviously not a genuine 'offer to park in breach for a fee'. That's a nonsense, and the signs are nonsense too. So what if the IAS think they are OK?

I feel - as far as PCM cases with IPC signs up are concerned - the IPC and their 'friends' at the IAS can go swivel.

I still don't feel naming the driver is a good idea when you don't have to. Your approach makes sense. Nothing has changed as far as a small claim defence is concerned and if you've cancelled the contract in writing, that throws an interesting twist into the mix.

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes and I do applaud you for it - you know I am certainly not 'against' your service and it's an option for lots of people. I admire what you do. But I am cautious.
Who would pick up the pieces if in a year's time PTA went bust or you closed the service and went to Oz? Leaving no current manned 'service addresses' for the drivers to be contacted. The PPCs would have six years to get around the problem, and they'd have the driver to pursue (or it would simply need the DVLA to agree to let PPCs get keeper data because the driver was 'uncontactable' all of a sudden). We know the DVLA's view and how pally they are with the BPA and IPC. The ATAs would paint it as a 'problem to overcome' and the DVLA would help them overcome it. Then PPCs could write to the driver c/o the keeper (on the basis most drivers can be conveniently contacted via a keeper) serve court papers 4 years down the line...etc. And the driver has no POFA to fall back on.


Yep that's the case (Enigma means it would fail at IAS but like you, my view is - so what?). IAS may ignore it so don't bother with IAS. It doesn't make the flawed NTK compliant if they try a small claim! And on top of that you can show a Judge that you cancelled the contract on the basis of the new Consumer Contract regs, which are a result of an EU drive to uniformity of information and communication in contracts. OK a Judge may not agree - not been tested yet as these are new Regs - but it gives you two strong points of appeal plus others such as 'no GPEOL' as it's obviously not a genuine 'offer to park in breach for a fee'. That's a nonsense, and the signs are nonsense too. So what if the IAS think they are OK?

I feel - as far as PCM cases with IPC signs up are concerned - the IPC and their 'friends' at the IAS can go swivel.

I still don't feel naming the driver is a good idea when you don't have to. Your approach makes sense. Nothing has changed as far as a small claim defence is concerned and if you've cancelled the contract in writing, that throws an interesting twist into the mix.

This is an issue that has contemplated but the risk is very low.

What you dont realise is the number of addresses available to be used and so in most cases the Parking company wont have a clue that they address that is being used is a service address. A parking company not realising they dont have the keepers real address isnt suddenly going to chase after the "keeper" 2 years down the line

It is my view that offering this cancellation of contracts is a non starter and that no judge is no going to take any notice of it in a small claims court and parking company is simply going to put it in the shredder

It is not right that this should be offered as an idea until the idea has been actually been road tested by people putting it forward with parking companies a bit more tougher then the likes of PCM and see where it gets them. Its all very well getting others to do it, but these things should tried before hand.

It is one thing to hypothesise about what should work and another to actually make sure it does work.

In relation to service address work enough money is put to one side to cover any problems to one side.

I think given the fact that we know IAS appeals are useless and that there are now two options then both options should be given to those who come here asking for help. Both have their benefits/drawbacks but its incumbent on us to offer proper options.

Companies like PCM are tame, but before this cancellation route is tried on more serious players it should be tested first and then see where it leads.

I understand why your cautious but i wouldnt have come up with this solution if i didn't think it was viable and workable.

With regards to chasing after a few years this has actually been tested/deployed in other situations and has worked a treat.

Coupon-mad

EDITED - it happened:

Originally Posted by Coupon-mad:
But I am cautious.
Who would pick up the pieces if in a year's time PTA went bust or you closed the service... Leaving no current manned 'service addresses' for the drivers to be contacted.

The appeals service let people down, unfortunately.

EnigmaPart1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think between us we both are offering the options! But if you notice, I haven't even updated the Newbies thread to point out the fact that 'we' both think that IAS appeals in some cases are a waste of time. That's because I have a day job and amending the sticky is done when I feel like it! So it will happen...

I reallythink thats the way to go (in between the day job), put the options to people out there, point out the companies that this may be an option to and let them make an informed choice.

The issue being most people will just come and read and not ask questions.

It really does need to be spelled out to people though