Private parking charge notices and PoFA 2012

Redx

dysucker wrote: »

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

I thought this was clearly legislated for?

depends if there were windscreen tickets or not , plus it also depends if G24 are citing POFA 2012 on these notices, or not

as I said earlier, but will repeat, POFA 2012 only applies if they cite it and are adhering to it

a lot of companies will get the RK details and write to them hoping they "dob in" the driver by naming the driver or the driver admitting to the events

it seems to me that somebody has named the driver to G24 , PERHAPS IN INNOCENCE, but then POFA 2012 no longer applies as it only protects the keeper , not the driver

also, as I said earlier (why do we have to repeat ourselves ?), the garage should have sent letters to G24 naming the keeper of the vehicle, not passed on these pcn,s

if anyones POFA rights were infringed, it was theirs, not your good lady`s

it seems to me that the keeper of the vehicle (your partner) has never received any NTK,s in her name, therefore has nothing to do with her (or you)

but when you or she appealed the tickets, you probably inferred or named the driver, at which point POFA 2012 does not apply and they are focussing on the driver now , which they have 6 years to pursue

once they have the drivers details, they have 6 years to pursue the driver , all the previous run up is irrelevant as they have got what they required, the drivers details

ALL of you have failed the basic processes

bazster

dysucker wrote: »

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.

:wall: Has anyone identified her to them as the driver? Have you? Has she? If the online forms are being filled in in her name, what have you said about her capacity i.e. driver or keeper?

Marktheshark

Getting the employer or contract holder to confirm that you have their permission to park that car on the land, despite permits and reg numbers removes a very important legal principle from the parking comapny.
Known as Locus Standi, when operating under contract, you must have the authority of the principle and land owner to recover any loss, contractual or trespass.
With such a letter stating you had permission any legal action they try should fail.

bazster

Redx wrote: »

also, as I said earlier (why do we have to repeat ourselves ?), the garage should have sent letters to G24 naming the keeper of the vehicle, not passed on these pcn,s

if anyones POFA rights were infringed, it was theirs, not your good lady`s

it seems to me that the keeper of the vehicle (your wife) has never received any NTK,s in her name, therefore has nothing to do with her (or you)

Well I suppose if the garage wished to take a chance on someone else dealing with it for them that's their problem, but having had the Notices passed on she could certainly have notified G24 that it was a courtesy car for which she was the de facto keeper (no mention of driver!) on the dates in question. They were already too late to issue a compliant NtK if there had been no windscreen ticket. All academic now though if the driver has indeed been identified to them.

dysucker

bazster wrote: »

:wall: Has anyone identified her to them as the driver? Have you? Has she? If the online forms are being filled in in her name, what have you said about her capacity i.e. driver or keeper?

Hmm, the original form was filled out and identified her as the driver.

I guess we're screwed then.

They have suggested that proof of payment for parking on the site will mean they will remove the charge as a goodwill gesture, so we have sent over a payslip for the same month identifying the payment for parking.

I'll get her to speak to her employer and see if they can state their position.

Apologies for seemingly wasting everyones time; when I had researched this originally, the first place I came to was here, and having seen everyone mentioning PoFA, I expected that to be the end of the matter.

bazster

No you are not screwed. You can still try to get it cancelled via the employer, but if that doesn't work out you simply go into ignore mode.

G24 doesn't sue, never has done. OK, they have up to six years to change their policy on this but you've nothing to lose by waiting to find out.

You have not wasted anyone's time. It gets a bit frustrating when people have missed opportunities to kill these things, and more frustrating when it's difficult to get at the facts, but we'll still try to help whatever stage you have got to.

Redx

agreed, but its like chinese whispers

the garage didnt follow BVRLA guidelines and passed the notices on, so they still havent absolved themselves under POFA 2012

neither this OP nor his partner have rceived any NTK in their own names, so their POFA 2012 rights have not been infringed

then this good lady lets her partner do all the work, before coming here and asking about the wording , so I believe that the OP has told G24 loads of details he should not have done , in which case G24 are probably aware of the drivers details due to admissions made in the appeal by the boyfriend

the OP is trying to wriggle out of this under POFA 2012 , but at the moment its my opinion that G24 have the drivers details so can pursue the driver regardless as POFA 2012 no longer applies

until we see what the boyfriend (OP) has written to G24 we wont know for sure, but I bet he has explained the circumstances and so given away who was driving the vehicle

so up to now I cannot see any relevance to POFA 2012 , not if they have the drivers details

a sad and sorry saga, made worse by the ignorance and poor research of all involved (the garage , the driver and the boyfriend) - thats how I see it lol

Marktheshark

Thats is what I recommend, get it shut down firm the landowner/ employers end and ask for a letter confirm you were allowed to park.
Then you can inform the parking firm, this was the driver, i have express written permission to park from the contract principle, if you dont agree we will see you at court with the person who wrote the letter, you and me.
Bye.
Dancing in circles with the parking comapny is waste of time.
Because they are money grabbing lying parasites.
Now we have that out of the way.

bazster

Agreed Redx, but at least it's only G24.

Redx

as above

you get a cancellation letter from the landowner, which says the good lady has their permission to park , this means G24 cannot possibly win if they were daft enough to try court over the next 6 years

in other words, the mitigation and legal arguments should win over a judge , if it ever gets that far over the next 6 years

as far as G24 are concerned, go into IGNORE mode , IGNORE their letters and invoices and debt collector letters (although this could backfire on the garage, but that is the stupid garage`s fault for not naming the keeper to G24)

its only if your good lady gets an LBC or MCOL that you need further help

in the meantime get letters of permission to park sorted out, by the employer and landowner, plus insist they get the charges cancelled as they employed G24 and so have rights of contract themselves

good luck