You guessed it - another parking ticket!

ollsville

Hi received a parking charge fine, linked below, and I've read the newbies thread. I just want clarification on some things regarding POFA 2012 - the ticket doesn't claim to follow it but it does seem to follow the conditions - but I thought it might be better for a more experienced eye to take a look.

What should my process be from here? Shall I go forward using the appeal template word for word and then wait to get to the Popla stage? And if so do I have any grounds regarding POFA when I get there?

Also I have receipts for the shopping that took place there so should I include these in the initial PCN appeal and mention them?

I'm also intending to complain to the landowner at the same time as I appeal the PCN.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Frontpage.jpg
dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Backpage.jpg

(You'll have to copy and paste these links as my profile doesn't allow me to post them)

Thanks in advance

ollsville

Any advice on this?


Thanks

bazster

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Frontpage.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Backpage.jpg

It's only Excel so just do the usual as per the Newbies thread - and complain to the landowner.

Never use a template word-for-word without reading it first! Make sure it is all applicable, or tailor it accordingly.

ollsville

Well I wasn't going to use the template word for word. I wanted clarification on the POFA 2012 and whether it was relevant to this fine. That way I would know whether to tailor the template to include 'no keeper liability' argument....


So I have been following the newbies thread but need help with this.

bazster

Yes it's relevant. They don't have to expressly mention POFA 2012 for it to be applicable.

Coupon-mad

Hang on a cotton picking minute, I can only see the front page (other link doesn't work for me) but IMHO it is not a POFA one, so Excel and VCS have both stopped bothering with POFA!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Frontpage.jpg

Please re-post the back page.

The clue is in the fact they say they will pursue the keeper 'on the assumption they were the driver'! That's not the wording needed from Schedule 4. Has anyone got an older NTK example they can find from Excel, to compare?

ollsville

Thanks for all the replies so far.

The link seems to be working for me above but I have uploaded it again for you convenience (you'll just have to copy and paste the link again, unless someone can repost it).

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62367222/Frontpage2.jpg

Let me know what you think coupon.

Cheers

hoohoo

NtKs have definitely changed since, say Jan 2013. They were not compliant then, and have become less compliant. This is their September 2014 release.

If I was Alan Sugar I would be saying to the NtK designer, whose only job is to get the NtK right....you're fired.

trubster

Very Compliant........ NOT!

4consumerrights

It seems that Excel are preparing to jump ship to the IPC .....

Coupon-mad

Possibly - and it is certainly a deliberate step (not a mistake by them) not to use the POFA.

It means Excel and VCS are not restricted to issuing PCNs by post by day 15, and are not capped at the 'PCN amount' maximum if they sue people. On the plus side for a registered keeper - that document does not comply at all with Schedule 4 of the POFA so there can be no keeper liability. I reckon Simon Renshaw-Smith is relying on the good old British public being daft enough to appeal and give away who was driving anyway, in which case he then can pursue the matter in court for say, £200 a pop, unrestricted by any POFA requirements (the old rules, pre-2012 approach). Reminds me of the CEL claims at the moment- they've never had POFA compliant PCNs and they pretend they can increase the 'penalty' to £300-odd when they are gearing up for a hearing - and I am sure some victims are scared enough to pay.

So, use the template word for word, or slightly shorten it if you prefer. Make sure you leave in the point about the NTK not establishing keeper liability, as well as no GPEOL.