PCN from G24 Ltd

enfield_freddy

why should you appeal t6o the ICS or whatever , its not your problem , they need to chase the driver and go after him.


they are using POFa , however the chimps at the ICS will not be bothered and just read over the bit where you write "I was not the driver"

pould

enfield_freddy wrote: »

why should you appeal t6o the ICS or whatever , its not your problem , they need to chase the driver and go after him.


they are using POFa , however the chimps at the ICS will not be bothered and just read over the bit where you write "I was not the driver"

Great. Thanks. I think I agree with you. Would be interested in other opinions but (i) until the evidence is provided that the NTK was posted in time the NTK is invalid and (ii) if the evidence suddenly turns up in time for court, any judge worth his/her salt is going to ask G24 "Why couldn't you have sent this to Mr Ould back in September 2015?"

Hot_Bring

pould wrote: »

Great. Thanks. I think I agree with you. Would be interested in other opinions but (i) until the evidence is provided that the NTK was posted in time the NTK is invalid and (ii) if the evidence suddenly turns up in time for court, any judge worth his/her salt is going to ask G24 "Why couldn't you have sent this to Mr Ould back in September 2015?"

G24 are a bunch of incompetent muppets. Really, just ignore them. Look at my previous posts on G24 - I know them inside out.

G24 won't ever be standing before a judge ( well their boss Adrian King might do so but it won't be to do with a parking charge ).

pould

Hot_Bring wrote: »

G24 are a bunch of incompetent muppets. Really, just ignore them. Look at my previous posts on G24 - I know them inside out.

G24 won't ever be standing before a judge ( well their boss Andy King might do so but it won't be to do with a parking charge ).

It is the second of your court scenarios that I am looking to enable.

pould

Right then.....

---

Thank you for your letter of the 28th of August, delivered to my address above on the 5th of September 2015.


In my letter to you of the 27th of August I requested the following information in my capacity as the registered keeper.


i) The alleged breach of contract occurred on the 11th of August 2015. The Parking Charge Notice to Keeper was delivered through my front door on Wednesday the 26th of August 2015 by the Royal Mail. This is a period of FIFTEEN DAYS. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5) states that the Notice to Keeper must be delivered WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS of the alleged breach of contract.
Please provide me with a proof of date of posting. Please note, I will not accept as sufficient evidence an internal date of issue – you must provide me with clear documentary evidence that the Notice to Keeper was handed over to your specified agents for delivery on or before the 23rd of August 2015 in order for me to accept a reasonable presumption of delivery two working days after postage.



Your letter of the 28th of August does not address this request. Please provide me the evidence that the Notice to Keeper was posted in due time.


Without evidence that the Notice to Keeper was posted in time to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5), my liability in this matter as the registered keeper of the vehicle is lapsed and the provisions of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 do not apply. Please refer all future correspondence to the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.


Having now requested for a second time the evidence that the Notice to Keeper was compliant with the provisions of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, I will view any further communications demanding money from G24 Ltd or any designated agent of G24 Ltd without this requested evidence as harassment and report it accordingly. Furthermore, I will also view any further demand for monies in this matter from G24 Ltd or its agents without the provision of the requested evidence of liability as an unwarranted demand with menaces as defined in Section 21 of the 1968 Theft Act which will be reported to the Police.

Sincerely,

---

I think we're done here aren't we?

Ralph-y

you might think so .... but I will double your stake $£$£ that you still get further debt crawler letters

Ralph:cool:

pould

Ralph-y wrote: »

you might think so .... but I will double your stake $£$£ that you still get further debt crawler letters

Ralph:cool:

Demanding money with menaces without having a legal basis, and KNOWING that they don't have a legal basis (no proof of postage exists)? That's a serious crime....

pould

Hi folks,

Thanks for all the comments so far.

One more question - given I've sent them a "put up or shut up" letter, is there any point in me making an "appeal" to the Kangaroo Court (IAS)?

The_Deep

Of course there is.


If, as is usual. you receive an anonymous, perverse and partial adjudication, completely reversing the usual order of these things, it means that the threat of a court case all but disappears. You simply say to the judge that the PPC does not offer a fair appeal system, as POFA requires, show him/her the IAS travesty, and it is game over.


Also, it costs the PPC money, and further diminishes their credibility.

pould

The_Deep wrote: »

Of course there is.


If, as is usual. you receive an anonymous, perverse and partial adjudication, completely reversing the usual order of these things, it means that the threat of a court case all but disappears. You simply say to the judge that the PPC does not offer a fair appeal system, as POFA requires, show him/her the IAS travesty, and it is game over.


Also, it costs the PPC money, and further diminishes their credibility.

If it runs them up a bill, I'm in.