POFA Sec. 7 (1)(2). 30 December 2015 at 12:14AM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 9 replies 787 views

yotmon

Hi everyone, just a quick query. Reading through the POFA 2012 I noticed that under sec. 7 (2) it states -
7
(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Now, the pcn (NTK) I obtained was not for parking but for stopping. However, no time period was mentioned. Would this apply to pcn's issued for stopping as well as parking 'offences' ?

Cheers, Yotmon

Fruitcake

yotmon wrote: »

Hi everyone, just a quick query. Reading through the POFA 2012 I noticed that under sec. 7 (2) it states -
7
(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Now, the pcn (NTK) I obtained was not for parking but for stopping. However, no time period was mentioned. Would this apply to pcn's issued for stopping as well as parking 'offences' ?

Cheers, Yotmon

Yes. The PCN is non POFA 2012 compliant because it does not specify the period of stopping/parking. I suspect it is also deficient in other ways as well, but you can certainly use the above as an appeal point.

hoohoo

For an NTK with no NTD you need paragraph 9, not 7.

esmerobbo

Assuming it is VCS they don't use POFA they simply assume that the RK was the driver, which if appealed to the IPC who confirm that it must have been the RK driving..

Marktheshark

Pretty certain the IPC select a fixed percentage of appeals to allow.
There is no evidence of them allowing certain points for certain car parks.
They appear to work totally random.
I dont even think they read the appeal if the truth be told, it is probably automated software that replies randomly with template replies.
A lottery if you like
If not show us all the staff they employ to deal with the appeals at red cow yard.

yotmon

hoohoo wrote: »

For an NTK with no NTD you need paragraph 9, not 7.

Thanks. Checked sec. 9 and its says pretty much the same.

yotmon

esmerobbo wrote: »

Assuming it is VCS they don't use POFA they simply assume that the RK was the driver, which if appealed to the IPC who confirm that it must have been the RK driving..

Now this is where I get confused ( doesn't take much). I thought (rightly or wrongly) that for ppc's to pursue the keeper as the driver then they had to go down the Pofa route. If VCS can 'assume' that the driver was the keeper or vice versa, how far can they take this assumption, ie as far as court ? Anyone able to point me towards any previous explanations or links ?

yotmon

Marktheshark wrote: »

If not show us all the staff they employ to deal with the appeals at red cow yard.

I did read somewhere that an ex Liverpool Crown court Judge had taken the position to head the adjudicators for the IAS, but unable to find his details at the moment !

Castle

yotmon wrote: »

I did read somewhere that an ex Liverpool Crown court Judge had taken the position to head the adjudicators for the IAS, but unable to find his details at the moment !

Announced here:-
https://www.theias.org/Lead-Adjudicator

Coupon-mad

yotmon wrote: »

Now this is where I get confused ( doesn't take much). I thought (rightly or wrongly) that for ppc's to pursue the keeper as the driver then they had to go down the Pofa route. If VCS can 'assume' that the driver was the keeper or vice versa, how far can they take this assumption, ie as far as court ? Anyone able to point me towards any previous explanations or links ?

You thought wrongly. Pretty sure the NEWBIES thread still advises that a PPC does not have to follow the POFA and can use the old way, driver liability only. Loads of them don't follow the POFA, e.g.:

CP Plus, Excel, VCS, Smart, Civil Enforcement all make no attempt.

Compare notes with this poster who was also pointlessly poring over the POFA, yet VCS don't use it:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5385271

and ignore them, except in the unlikely event of a court claim.