Company Car PCN

Coupon-mad

As the PCN is still in time for the keeper to appeal, why don't you just send an appeal now (from the Newbies thread) saying that the PCN has been passed to xxxxxLtd who are the keepers of the vehicle in question and you are responding with the following challenge because you are the usual designated keeper of the car.

Then the rest of the Newbies thread 'first appeal' template - or a shorter version of it if you like to be succinct!

I think it's important to respond now as keeper. CEL do not have keeper liability so they are easy to stuff at POPLA by any appellant who remains in keeper mode throughout.

Also email Lex and your own company Fleet Manager and say, now you have taken advice on the matter you have realised this is NOT a PCN which is covered by the POFA 2012, not one where there as ever any keeper liability. As such, you are appealing the matter and will win it at POLA so they need to take no further action and will get no letters (but if they do, pass them to you as they have no liability in law for this PCN). If they want to know why it's not a POFA 2012 Notice, the answer is spelt out in the 'Civil Enforcement example' of a POPLA appeal in the hyperlink 'How to win at POPLA' in post #3 of the Newbies thread. Basically they simply don't use the right words for keeper liability so it's an old-school 'driver only' private invoice - none of either company's business (they just can't tell the difference).

A keeper can't lose when appealing these to POPLA (the IAS would be different so be thankful it's a BPA member!) as long as the driver is not divulged.

Brianthesprout

All,
Many thanks for the advice given on this matter and I will send a note off today as recommended by Couponmad.

I have now spent a number of hours studying the thread and particularly schedule 4 of POPFA 12.
It's slowly sinking in but there is one area that is causing me some confusion and I was hoping somebody might be able to clarify it for me. (apologies in advance - I'm sure it’s a daft question!).

The term "parking charges" is used in a number of different points in section 9 of schedule 4. eg
9.2 (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

9.2 (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the and the other facts that made them payable;

Now, I am assuming that in the 2 sections above this is the £2 (or whatever) required to park the car for a couple of hours

But in 9.2 e it states the creditor should invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges which I assume refers to £70 penalty they are trying to impose rather than the £2 for parking.
(Otherwise presumbably one would just say thanks for the letter and here's your 2 quid!)

9.2 (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
etc

I'm obviously missing something…

On a separate note I've studied the T's and C's on the CEL PCN and note the point made by Couponmad in one of her newbie posts that they're on the detachable slip and therefore considered to be a separate section and therefore invlaid.
I've noticed that there is a typo which if read closely makes one of the key sentences nonsensical:

"If you were not the driver you may pay the PCN or provide us with the name and current address for service of the driver and pass on this PCN to the driver."

If the driver had been of a mind to pay this charge he wouldn't know if he was allowed to as the condition following the if statement is illogical.
It's probably not relevent but if it helps someone else with legal knowledge dispute these letters on a technicality then great!:D

Many thx

Coupon-mad

sure it’s a daft question!

It's not a daft question - it's the elephant in the room that even Richard Reeve at POPLA can't get his head around.

The term "parking charges" is used in a number of different points in section 9 of schedule 4....Now, I am assuming that ...this is the £2 (or whatever) required to park the car for a couple of hours

Yes, it clearly IS any tariff, and not the 'breach/contractual stupid amount'. But when I helped a person complain about a POPLA decision recently - regulars might guess which PPC, it's not CEL - and explained (in detail) why that is clearly the tariff, due to the timeline indicated in the Act, Richard Reeve merely responded to that argument with one line: '£80 is clearly stated on the Notice'.

It would need the point tested in court. You are not wrong.

Otherwise presumably one would just say thanks for the letter and here's your 2 quid!

Yet that DOES appear to be the intention of the Act, to reclaim UNPAID parking charges which existed before the PCN.

And yes, CEL Notice to Keepers are a pile of crap, that sentence you noticed doesn't surprise me!