Private parking charge notices and PoFA 2012

dysucker

Hi guys,

My partner has recently received 3 PCN's for parking a courtesy car on a retail car park.

She pays for parking on this site through her employer, who in turn pay the private company, however, they also provide all of the car registrations; in this case, being a courtesy car, they were not informed.

All that aside, the garage who owns the vehicle received the 3 notices, for violations that occurred on the 11th and 12th May, and the notices were issued on the 3rd June.

The garage gave the notices to us to pursue, and after research, noticed that they were issued way over the relevant period as required by PoFA 2012.

I appealed the notices on my partners behalf, identifying this fact, and also mentioned that she pays for parking on the site for a different vehicle, which was currently being repaired, and thought that would be enough.

They have responded stating that it is not their responsibility to ensure the driver receives the notice, and that the notice was sent to the keeper within the required period. However, I told them the notices were sent to the keeper over 20 days after the original violation, and are therefore unenforceable according to PoFA 2012.

They are also requesting proof of payment.

Given that the proof is actually on a payslip provided by her employer, and that the notices are actually in violation of PoFA 2012 themselves, I am keen not to send out personal information they have no rights to.

Is it fair to respond to them again informing them that they are in violation of the legislation as defined in PoFA 2012?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Redx

the garage should have notified them of the keeper details for the hire car, until they do this, they could be held liable under POFA 2012

at the moment you have not stated if the PPC are following POFA 2012 , many dont !

if you or she sent in an appeal and named the driver as well, then POFA 2012 does not apply so cannot be argued by you or her

so the garage should have named the keeper, to absolve themselves under POFA 2012

then the PPC should have sent the keeper new notices, so the clock starts again

seems to me that all the incorrect procedures were followed

if we assume that she or you appealed as driver, then they have the drivers details and can pursue that driver for 6 years under the small claims court procedures (if they wish to)

so you could be getting debt collector letters etc , unless you get the landowner to quash the charges, or if you can appeal them all and win at appeal

you have not mentioned the PPC details, so we cannot be more specific at this time

but I suspect you have all handled it all wrong so far

Marktheshark

Ask your employer to call the dogs off at the parking firm.
However like most people that get in to bed with these people he may find they tell him to get stuffed and wave the contract at them.

dysucker

Redx wrote: »

the garage should have notified them of the keeper details for the hire car, until they do this, they could be held liable under POFA 2012

at the moment you have not stated if the PPC are following POFA 2012 , many dont !

if you or she sent in an appeal and named the driver as well, then POFA 2012 does not apply so cannot be argued by you or her

so the garage should have named the keeper, to absolve themselves under POFA 2012

then the PPC should have sent the keeper new notices, so the clock starts again

seems to me that all the incorrect procedures were followed

if we assume that she or you appealed as driver, then they have the drivers details and can pursue that driver for 6 years under the small claims court procedures (if they wish to)

so you could be getting debt collector letters etc , unless you get the landowner to quash the charges, or if you can appeal them all and win at appeal

you have not mentioned the PPC details, so we cannot be more specific at this time

but I suspect you have all handled it all wrong so far

The company is G24 Ltd who is chasing the notice.

I've been reading www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Surely part 6.4 and 6.5 actually counteract each other; if the registered keeper provides the details of the driver, then the land owner had not obtained the details from the DVLA, and therefore the notice is unenforcable?

In any case, the notice to the registered keeper was over the relevant period of 15 days (being as they were issued 20+ days after the actual violation), so surely in this case, the registered keeper can ignore the notice any way?

bazster

This is all very unclear.

(i) who signed for the courtesy car, you or her?

(ii) did you or did you not identify her to G24 as the driver?

(iii) were there windscreen tickets or were the postal notices the first you heard of this?

dysucker

bazster wrote: »

This is all very unclear.

(i) who signed for the courtesy car, you or her?

(ii) did you or did you not identify her to G24 as the driver?

(iii) were there windscreen tickets or were the postal notices the first you heard of this?

i - She signed for the courtesy car
ii - She did not identify the temporary change of vehicle to her employer, who in turn did not inform G24
iii - these were postal notices sent to the registered keeper (they couldn't be put on the windscreen 20+ days after the violation)

Iceweasel

No offence to either the OP or partner, but this shows how innocent people can naievely fall into the trap of these greedy PPCs.

The immediate reaction of normal people is to explain the situation, expecting that the mitigating circumstances will lead to discretion and fair treatment.

No chance of that - these people want cash, and they are presently rubbing their grubby little paws in expectation.

The OP and/or partner now need to extricate themselves from a situation that has been innocently mishandled at virtually every stage.

Best bet now as Marktheshark has said is to get your partner's employers to inform (belatedly) that the vehicle was there with their permission.

bazster

dysucker wrote: »

i - She signed for the courtesy car
ii - She did not identify the temporary change of vehicle to her employer, who in turn did not inform G24
iii - these were postal notices sent to the registered keeper (they couldn't be put on the windscreen 20+ days after the violation)

<pulling teeth>

(i) So what does any of this have to do with you? You were not the driver, you're not the registered keeper, and you were not the de facto keeper, so why are you corresponding with G24?

(ii) That's not what I asked. What I asked was whether the driver had been named to G24 (and if so - in light of the above - by whom i.e. you or the garage?)

(iii) Yes I get that there were notices in the post, but what I asked was whether there were windscreen tickets first; this is important in determining whether the postal notices really were late. If there were windscreen tickets first then the postal notices were in fact early; if no windscreen tickets, they were late.

</pulling teeth>

dysucker

So, does it not matter that G24 issued the notice 20+ days after the violation?

I thought this was clearly legislated for?

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

bazster

POFA 2012 Schedule 4 merely governs the circumstances in which the vehicle keeper may be held liable. If they know who the driver was then POFA 2012 Schedule 4 goes out of the window in its entirety as they will simply pursue the driver, which they can take 6 years over if they wish.

dysucker

bazster wrote: »

<pulling teeth>

(i) So what does any of this have to do with you? You were not the driver, you're not the registered keeper, and you were not the de facto keeper, so why are you corresponding with G24?

(ii) That's not what I asked. What I asked was whether the driver had been named to G24 (and if so - in light of the above - by whom i.e. you or the garage?)

(iii) Yes I get that there were notices in the post, but what I asked was whether there were windscreen tickets first; this is important in determining whether the postal notices really were late. If there were windscreen tickets first then the postal notices were in fact early; if no windscreen tickets, they were late.

</pulling teeth>

i - I am my girlfriends partner, and she needs help, I am corresponding with them on her behalf; since the whole process appears to be online at this stage, I am filling in the forms in her name with her prior approval.

ii - The registered keeper provided us with the notices that were provided to him, we are not aware of whether the registered keeper has identified my partner as the driver to them.

iii - There were no windscreen tickets issued; these were simply posted to the registered keeper.

The format is exactly as required by PoFA, except the issue date is in excess of 20+ after the violation date; so as far as I am aware, nobody has to do anything, since the notice is unenforceable.

Just to be clear; the notices I have are the notices provided by the registered keeper, and the appeals process appears to be online.