PCN issued on company pool car

Fruitcake

dexman wrote: »

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:

It would be better to post on this thread as it makes it easier for posters to follow the events leading up to the LBC in one place instead of jumping from one thread to another.

Edna_Basher

Hi Dexman,

I note that the vehicle's registered keeper is a limited company (i.e. your family's company).

There is nothing to stop the company challenging this PCN in its own name as registered keeper. The advantage of doing this is that there is 0% probability that your company could have been the driver – this means that the IPC / IAS will be unable to rely upon their usual trick of assuming that on the balance of probabilities the keeper was also the driver.

You could write your initial letter to the PPC along the lines of:

Dear Sir,

Parking Charge Notice 123456789
Vehicle Registration AA11AAA

We refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by Northern Parking Services (North East) Ltd (“NPS”) as a Notice to Keeper to our company, [ABC Ltd] in respect of an alleged parking charge incurred by the above-detailed vehicle on [Date of Alleged Incident].

We confirm that our company, [ABC Ltd] is the keeper of this vehicle for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA 2012”) and we write to formally dispute the validity of this charge.

We trust that NPS is aware that in order to be able to invoke keeper liability, its Notice to Keeper had to fully comply with the strict requirements of POFA 2012. However, there are a number of reasons why NPS’s Notice to Keeper did not comply; we suggest that you carefully study Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to understand why.

It will be obvious to NPS that as a body corporate, [ABC Ltd] could not possibly have been the driver of the vehicle. Having forfeited any right to hold the keeper liable for this PCN, there are no possible circumstances where NPS may hold [ABC Ltd] liable for this charge. We therefore require you to confirm to us that NPS shall cancel this charge forthwith. Alternatively, should you choose to reject our challenge, please provide us with the means to escalate our dispute to the Independent Appeals Service (“IAS”).

We look forward to receiving NPS’s notification that this charge has been cancelled.


Yours faithfully,

[insert squiggle as a signature]

Speculative Invoice Management Team
[ABC Ltd]


This is one of the few scenarios where I think it would be worthwhile escalating the challenge to the IAS, because surely even the IAS wouldn't be foolish enough to argue that a limited company was capable of driving a vehicle.

Umkomaas

because surely even the IAS wouldn't be foolish enough to argue that a limited company was capable of driving a vehicle.

I admire your optimism, EB!

Edna_Basher

It would be hilarious to see them try

Umkomaas

Edna_Basher wrote: »

It would be hilarious to see them try

As Kevin Keegan once remarked, 'I'd love it, just love it .... '.

Popcorn anyone?

dexman

Hi Edna Basher,


Thanks very much for the draft appeal to PCC.


I am happy to try that approach, even if it is just to see how the IAS would judge the appeal on those grounds; will keep you updated as to how we get on.

Edna_Basher

Thanks dexman.

Please keep us updated.

I'm really quite envious of you. Of the 60+ private PCNs that our company has challenged over the last year, every single one came from a BPA member.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan (and Umkomaas), I'd love it, just love it if one of our drivers were to get an IPC ticket.

ColliesCarer

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Thanks dexman.

Please keep us updated.

I'm really quite envious of you. Of the 60+ private PCNs that our company has challenged over the last year, every single one came from a BPA member.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan (and Umkomaas), I'd love it, just love it if one of our drivers were to get an IPC ticket.

Get one of them to stop off at the infamous Peel Centre, Stockport - infested by Excel who seem to do mail shots of PCN's there

hoohoo

My bet:

The IAS will get round this by ruling that the NTK is in fact compliant.

Either; (a) they will jump through hoops to justify this
Or; (b) they will just state that 'in my opinion the NTK is compliant'

I have seen some ridiculous attempts along these lines (a) by Gladstones in court cases.

System

Company has 2 directors. This is the more "colourful" of the two.

https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/darren-james/4b/b40/524