Park with Ease PCN

busy-resting

Hello guys. Hope you are well. I recently got a Postal PCN from Park with Ease who use ANPR technology. Now I have read the newbies thread and it says the following

"If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to) the postal PCN has to arrive by day 15 if there was no windscreen ticket, and between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen ticket. Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, CP Plus, Smart Parking and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA2012 so the keeper is not liable - obviously the keeper is the only person identified in your appeal then!"

My question is the offence date was 19/4/15 and the letter was posted on the 11/5/15 which is more than 14 days BUT its address as driver liability.

How should I go about with the appeal? is the 14 day thing not relevant for me as its driver liability not keeper liability.

Kind Regards

enfield_freddy

first thing to ask you , is the V5 for the vehicle in YOUR name and address , or is it a hire/lease etc car?

busy-resting

Oh sorry my mistake. I have read plenty of threads and replies ask this question so I should know better. the v5 is on my name and address.

enfield_freddy

in that case it looks like they have exceeded the time that is necessary to claim under the POFa 2012 act, and therefore you are not obliged to name the driver

Redx

they failed pofa 2012 with that delay so in theory can only chase the driver (if they knew the drivers details, so dont tell them)

appeal using the template, as keeper , bearing in mind these are IPC members so use the IAS kangaroo court

busy-resting

Thanks guys. Based on your information I will claim with the template but also add the following:
As the owner of the vehicle I am not obliged to name the driver as the 14 day time limit given under pofa 2012 was not met.

Is that ok?

bazster

You never were obliged to name the driver regardless of the timing of the NtK.

By all means appeal if you want to make a nuisance of yourself, but don't do so with any hope of winning. Skippy the IAS assessor will simply state that he doesn't care about the NtK being late and will dismiss your appeal on the "reasonable assumption" that the registered keeper was the driver.

You could have a bash on signage, if you've got (or can get) pictures of it. Park with Ease signs are usually rubbish. But you can still expect The Bush Kangaroo to twist it against you, after all this marsupial sees nothing wrong with the preposterous signs at Liverpool Airport.

busy-resting

Thanks bazster. Yes reading the newbie thread I realized my appeal would be declined by the ias. But I thought the appeal and their response would be helpful if it went to court (Minimal chance I know).
what do you suggest I do bazster?
Thanks

Guys_Dad

I would state in your appeal that POFA purposely sets a 14 day deadline on ANPR tickets as any later time the RK may very well have been forgotten who the driver was at that time.

As it was, you categorically deny that you were the driver at that time and will be willing to prove it, should it come to court.

Under these circumstances, with a categoric denial and a procedural error, IAS would be clearly displaying their lack of objectivity and would be castigated in any court.

bazster

busy-resting wrote: »

Thanks bazster. Yes reading the newbie thread I realized my appeal would be declined by the ias. But I thought the appeal and their response would be helpful if it went to court (Minimal chance I know).
what do you suggest I do bazster?
Thanks

That's fine, you've clearly "got it". I just didn't want you appealing thinking you might win!

Actually you might win, it's just very unlikely. The IAS upholds 20% of appeals, as it needs to in order to maintain the pretence that it's not rigged; by contrast PoPLA upholds 50% of appeals.

So if you want to appeal for the reasons you've stated, go ahead.

Or if you want to be really awkward you can deliberately send in your appeal a couple of days after whatever arbitrary deadline Park with Ease has set, and then spend the next 6 months replying to each and every one of the begging letters stating that you are still willing to go to Alternative Dispute Resolution subject to the availability of an ADR service compliant with Schedule 3 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015, and pointing out that those regulations provide that ADR should be available for 12 months. You then get a loooong paper trail of you looking reasonable and them looking the complete opposite.

Or another option, once Park with Ease has rejected your initial appeal, is to write again stating: "I wish to appeal further and will do so if you make available an ADR service that is transparent in its operation, independent and seen to be independent, with an independent scrutiny board, and compliant with Schedule 3 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015. Otherwise I am under no obligation to appeal a speculative invoice, and any court case brought by you will be robustly defended".

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

As it was, you categorically deny that you were the driver at that time and will be willing to prove it, should it come to court.

For all we know the OP was the driver! (OP, don't answer that unless you weren't!)