Company Car Driver process clarification

Edna_Basher

With this incident having occurred on railway land, MET should not be seeking to claim Keeper liability; their Notice to Keeper (when it arrives) should make no mention of POFA 2012.

If your fleet company’s fleet administrator is willing to help, the easiest way to get this charge cancelled would be for your company to respond (as Registered Keeper) to the Notice to Keeper. It should be obvious (even to MET) that it in this case, there is no possibility that the Registered Keeper, as a body corporate, could have been the driver.

A simple letter from the company should suffice – something along the lines of......

Dear Sir

MET Parking Services Ltd: PCN Ref 123456789, Vehicle Reg. FU2 MET

We refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) dated [Date] issued by MET Parking Services Limited (“MET”) to our company, [XYZ Ltd] as a Notice to Keeper in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at the Chiltern Railway Car Park, Beaconsfield Station on 20th April 2015.

We confirm that our company, [XYZ Ltd] Ltd is the Registered Keeper of this vehicle and we write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN for the reason detailed below.

As MET is aware, parking on this site is subject to the statutory control of Railway Byelaws; this car park is therefore not relevant land for the purpose of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and consequently, MET has no right to claim Keeper liability for this charge. There is no possibility that our company [XYZ Ltd] (as a body corporate) could have been the driver of this vehicle and there are no possible circumstances where our company could be liable for this charge. We now require that you notify us in writing within the strict timescales set out under the British Parking Association Limited (BPA) Code of Practice either that:

a) MET accepts that our company is not liable for this charge and that the PCN has been cancelled, or;
b) MET has rejected our challenge, in which case you shall at the same time provide us with details of the independent appeals service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that we may escalate the matter to POPLA.

Thank you for your cooperation and we look forward to receiving MET’s notification that this charge has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Airwalker1979

Thank you for that reply. first conclusion I draw is that I should indeed await their NtK. Then if my fleet admin is happy to take this approach follow as per above.

If my admin is not happy to do so, which is likely to be the case, do I revert to the newbie template response?

And is the guidance above only applicable if the NtK does indeed omit any reference to POFA 2012?

Thanks again

Edna_Basher

So long as you're confident that the fleet administrator will pass the NtK on to you, then I think the best thing to do would be to wait for your company to receive the NtK.

In the past, MET got themselves into a lot of trouble for using POFA 2012 to claim keeper liability on railway land. Therefore, I'll be very surprised if their NtK makes any reference to POFA.

You'll be able to work out your next steps when the NtK arrives.

Airwalker1979

lovely job, thank you ever so much.

Edna_Basher

Good stuff.

Please let us know what the NtK says when your company finally receives it.

Airwalker1979

New update:

Just received the NtK. Now forwarded to me by my fleet admin, who have confirmed that they have not provided my details, nor will they. They simply leave it to me to now reply and keep them advised.

The NtK states:

On 20/04/2015 the terms and conditions which those entering the site agree to be bound by, were clearly displayed in prominent places within the car park. The vehicle did not clearly display a valid parking ticket / voucher / permit. and in accordance with the contract that was agreed to upon entering, these terms were violated and therefore the parking charge detailed above is immediately payable.

AT (Location (373) Beaconsfiled Station, Penn Road, New Town, Beaconsfield, HP9 2PJ
AT (Time): 11:13
The photographic evidence may be reviewed at metreview.co.uk

...[details of charges and that discount was available for 14 days etc. charge is now £100]...

A parking charge notice was issued to the driver of the vehicle shown above by fixing it to the vehicle or handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle and, as at the day before the date of issue of the notice had not been paid in full and the amount of the notice is still outstanding as above.

The driver of the vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. We do not know the drivers name or current postal address and we invite you to either pay the unpaid parking charge notice or, if you were not the driver of the vehicle, notify us of the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.

I intend to reply with the standard template. Only amend is regarding signage, where I feel claiming signage was not prominent isn't valid.

b). As keeper I believe that the signs contained ambiguous wording and the predominant purpose of your business model is to deter.

I will then submit this online.

Any concerns in this approach?

Umkomaas

I intend to reply with the standard template. Only amend is regarding signage, where I feel claiming signage was not prominent isn't valid.

It's not about the prominence of signs, it's about where they are and what's on them.

Have you checked them against the BPA requirements laid out in the Code of Practice, paras 18.1 to 18.11 and Appendix B?

Don't let the PPC off any hook; they're after your money, don't forget!

Fruitcake

Airwalker1979 wrote: »

New update:

Just received the NtK. Now forwarded to me by my fleet admin, who have confirmed that they have not provided my details, nor will they. They simply leave it to me to now reply and keep them advised.

The NtK states:



I intend to reply with the standard template. Only amend is regarding signage, where I feel claiming signage was not prominent isn't valid.




I will then submit this online.

Any concerns in this approach?

Appeal as keeper using the template in the NEWBIES thread, using ALL the appeal points just as they are.


Add additional points about the NTK not being POFA compliant as the land is not relevant, but is covered by railway bye-laws where keeper liability does not apply.


Hold fast and do not reveal who was driving no matter what, and do not miss appeal deadlines.