PCN issued on company pool car

dexman

Hello,


One of our company pool cars was issued a PCN by Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd. Having searched about this company on the MSE forum I understand that they are BPA/IPC registered.


I appreciate this is matter less to the appeals process but for background info - the PCN was issued in a car park where the driver had to go to the nearest shop for change as the machine was faulty. When the driver returned (approx 15 mins later) the NPS employee was still in the car park, and he would not remove the PCN.


The car is registered to our company which is a family business. Am I correct that the newbie instruction regarding company car drivers would not apply in this instance, we are quite happy to deal with this as the registered keeper on behalf of our company?


If an NtK is sent to our company by NPS Ltd, are we able to respond that the vehicle is a pool car and we do not record employee use of this vehicle - effectively stating that we are unable to identify the driver in this instance?


Or would there be any other advice regarding the best method to handle this case, given the nature of our company entity as the registered keeper?


Thanks in advance for any help offered, this forum has been a very valuable resource

Fruitcake

If you can get the NTK then appeal as keeper or registered keeper. You are under no obligation to reveal who was driving. You don't have to say it was a company or pool car.


So, wait for the NTK as long as you are sure you can get it without someone in the company stupidly paying it, then appeal as per the NEWBIES thread.
You could add an additional point that the meter was faulty and the parking operative refused to mitigate the company's loss by getting it fixed.

dexman

Thanks for the advice. I've told the co sec who handles the mail to pass any correspondence to me so no drama there.

Will follow the forum NtK from there, and thanks for highlighting the meter issue will include that in the response.

Will update the thread with any new correspondence as and when. Cheers.

dexman

Just an update on this post.

I received the NtK at day 53 - My view is that it does seem compliant with POFA 2012, the only slight discrepancies I can see (not sure if they are relevant) are:

• Period of parking: there is no period of parking mentioned only a date/time of issue.
• Ability to appeal: NPS say the ability to appeal is no longer available.
• Discount: NPS offer no discount to the RK for payment of the PCN at this stage.

Would any of these points be grounds for disputing keeper liability? I did tryto embed a redacted image of the NtK but as a new user I am unable to post links.

Looking back through the forum history, the feedback regarding Northern Parking Services is that they were non-compliant with POFA 2012 and that they never take to court.

However from the IPC website I see they joined that association in Jan 2015, and looking at their website they seem to have cleaned things up a bit from previous posts.

What would the advice here be?

Should I try soft appeal to show willing; or with NPS being an IPC member and the IAS not being worthwhile should I just ignore and see if court proceedings eventually turn up?

Thanks in advance!

Redx

you will see the current thinking about IAS appeals (dont bother - ie: ignore) in the NEWBIES sticky thread, where it is explicitly mentioned

as for pics, you host them on tinypic or photobucket and then add a link to them in your reply, changing the http to hxxp before submitting the reply

dexman

Hi Redx, thanks for the reply.


Yes per the Newbies thread I will be ignoring any offer of IAS appeal, and debt letter chain should that follow.


Even though the PCC are an IPC member is it still worthwhile trying a soft appeal to the PCC, just to show willing should this go to court in future? I am happy enough drafting that from the advice on Newbies thread.


Thanks for the advice on posting pics, I have included links to the redacted NtK below (hosted on TinyPic).


Are any of the points I mentioned regards the NtK relevant to denying keeper liability? Or are there any others I may have missed?


Really appreciate the help and support... thanks!


hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/w84b4j.jpg
hxxp://i57.tinypic.com/2vv3tq1.jpg

Fruitcake

dexman wrote: »

Hi Redx, thanks for the reply.


Yes per the Newbies thread I will be ignoring any offer of IAS appeal, and debt letter chain should that follow.


Even though the PCC are an IPC member is it still worthwhile trying a soft appeal to the PCC, just to show willing should this go to court in future? I am happy enough drafting that from the advice on Newbies thread.


Thanks for the advice on posting pics, I have included links to the redacted NtK below (hosted on TinyPic).


Are any of the points I mentioned regards the NtK relevant to denying keeper liability? Or are there any others I may have missed?


Really appreciate the help and support... thanks!


hxxp://i58.tinypic.com/w84b4j.jpg
hxxp://i57.tinypic.com/2vv3tq1.jpg

You should still make the initial appeal to the parking company. In the unlikely event it ever got to court you could at least show that you tried but (should the appeal fail) they were unreasonable especially as there was a faulty machine that the parking chappy refused to address. This effectively meant you were prevented from meeting the parking companies Ts and Cs and thus any implied contract would be unfair.




http://i58.tinypic.com/w84b4j.jpg
http://i57.tinypic.com/2vv3tq1.jpg

ManxRed

There's mixed views on appealing to IPC companies/IAS.

1. You could appeal, knowing full well that they'll reject (they always do), however their dismissal - in writing - of perfectly valid legal points about why the charges are unenforceable, can be used later should they be stupid to try court action. In fact, them knowing that they've issued such a ridiculous appeal dismissal may deter them from wanting to take court action

2. Ignore them, as it's simply a waste of time and effort, knowing full well you'll get the brush off.

I personally prefer #1, but #2 is just as valid an option here.

ManxRed

Make sure your appeal includes 'frustration of contract' in relation to the faulty machine. In other words, circumstances beyond the driver's control (and perfectly within theirs) prevented the driver from complying with the terms and conditions of the contract (the sign displaying the terms), which they would have been perfectly willing to do under normal circumstances.

Note how I use 'the driver' instead of 'me', 'I', 'my', etc... ! Take heed!

ColliesCarer

Whatever they have called it - it's still should be treated as an NtK.

Check the contents of it against POFA Schedule 4 section 8 (which applies when a windscreen Notice to Driver has previously been issued).

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

The forum is seeing an increase in the number of IPC members who are only accepting appeals submitted within 21 days of receipt of a windscreen notice - see link to IPC CoP below - and if sent by the Keeper - the PPC are trying to claim the appellant is the driver using the phrase "on the reasonable assumption that they are the driver" because they responded to the NtD.

http://www.theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

More and more are also then sending an NtK which states the time for appeal has ended - thereby attempting to deny the keeper the chance to appeal even though the PPC are trying to invoke POFA 2012 Schedule 4 for keeper liability.

In response to appeals from the keeper to these subsequent NtK's the PPC's are replying that the appeal has been received too late.

However, I would say submit an appeal from the KEEPER anyway as I agree with the advice from others that their rejection of it will be useful especially their attempt to deny the Keeper any appeal route.

Also a new EU directive regarding the provision of ADR for consumer services comes into force on 15th July - which is worth reading up on. The link below being a good start point

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5239891

dexman

That's excellent thanks for the advice everyone.


I will appeal to the PPC, fully aware it will be rejected, but as you say all good evidence in my favour should this end up with a court summons.


I will also reject any offer of IAS appeal for reasons given in the Newbies thread, and ignore any debt letter chain that may follow.


Should an LBC turn up at some point in the future I will start a new thread and reference this one.


Thanks again for all of the advice, much appreciated!


:beer: