Request for driver details received

wizzweasel

Hi I've submitted an appeal to Highview Parking after receiving a postal PCN which asked for £85 after parking 23 mins longer than 'allowed' in a retail car park before Christmas. In my correspondence I referred to 'the driver' as instructed in the NEWBIES thread.
I have now received an email asking for driver details. Not sure what to do - will I weaken my case or any future POPLA appeals if I give them the driver details? Wording in email follows:
"The representations stated in your correspondence have been noted and considered. In order to reissue this Notice, we will require the full name and address of the driver at the time this charge was incurred."

Any advice gratefully received, Thanks

System

In order to reissue this Notice,

An admission they have not met the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act to hold the Keeper liable.

Did they send a POPLA code with the rejection? If not complain to the BPA (aos@britishparking.co.uk) and remind them of their contractual obligations to ensure their members keep to the Code of Practice.

wizzweasel

Thanks , no rejection received as yet, just request for driver details. Not sure what they mean by ' reissuing the notice'.

Redx

do not give them driver details (its a phishing expedition)

as its a BPA CoP breach , report them to the BPA by email for not providing a popla code, also provide copies of the paperwork so far , details can be found in the newbies sticky thread

these companies would love to know the name and address of the driver in each and every case, dont fall for it, they are not entitled to demand the details just so they can reissue the pcn correctly

Marktheshark

Thankyou for your request for "information"
A Admin charge of £75 is chargeable for release of information to private companies.
Once we are in receipt of the Admin charge in cleared funds we will supply the requested information.
Thank you for your enquiry.

Signed the keeper of XXXXX

Coupon-mad

wizzweasel wrote: »

Thanks , no rejection received as yet, just request for driver details. Not sure what they mean by ' reissuing the notice'.

DO NOT agree to supply the information.

Just say you decline to identify the driver and do not wish them to reissue the Notice because you want to appeal to POPLA as registered keeper, as is your right. Invite them to cancel the charge because not only is it unfair and disproportionate but it's clear they haven't complied with the POFA, as proven by this desperate fishing email for driver's details, which you will show to POPLA.

wizzweasel

Many thanks I will decline to provide details.
Just another question so I am clear though. I have read through POFA section 4 and I'm not sure which bit have they failed to comply with. Is it directly as a result of sending me this phishing email ? Can someone clarify for me ? Possibly relates to paragraph 9


9.
2.
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
In the original PCN they don't state that they do not know the name and address of the driver but they do ask that if you were not the driver to forward the driver's name and address.


I agree they have failed to supply a POPLA code but they haven't officially rejected my appeal.


Thanks again for clarification.

Coupon-mad

Yes it will be paragraph 9 to compare your NTK to, in cases where there was no windscreen PCN (usually where the PCN arises from ANPR cameras). At POPLA stage you can be as pedantic as you like about the wording not exactly matching the statute. Also, I expect there is no 'date sent' or 'date given' (could be wrong) but most PPCs just go for a 'date issued' which is NOT the date it was posted, as you can tell from the fact it arrives several days after that.

beamerguy

Marktheshark wrote: »

Thankyou for your request for "information"
A Admin charge of £75 is chargeable for release of information to private companies.
Once we are in receipt of the Admin charge in cleared funds we will supply the requested information.
Thank you for your enquiry.

Signed the keeper of XXXXX

Brilliant :T
This perfectly legal way is called "An Eye For An Eye"

Oh boy, these Parking Cowboys are really struggllng now

Folks, an industry that is legal and genuine would never get up to these silly tricks ... but we know the PPC industry are simply scammers and now, it seems that the BPA have become the biggest waste of space in the parking industry. And IPC/IAS well, the Red Cow bunch of cowboys are the biggest joke of all.

Then we have the County Court Judges who right now cannot see a scam if it hit them in their faces.

A very sad system. Patrick Troy of the BPA IS USELESS
David Dunford of the DVLA is responsible for allowing fraudsters like UKPC to scam the motorist.
Why on earth is Dunford allowed to continue, why is Troy allowed to continue ???

A full government investigation of these two bods IS REQUIRED, its very fishy, infact it smells so bad and will probably make Watergate look like a kids game

NEWBIES ONLY .... regulars have seen this
REAL REGULATION is required not the like of the BPA, so now the government petition has reached 8,384 signatures

DO IT
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111925

Guys_Dad

beamerguy wrote: »

Brilliant :T
This perfectly legal way is called "An Eye For An Eye"

Oh boy, these Parking Cowboys are really struggllng now

Folks, an industry that is legal and genuine would never get up to these silly tricks ... but we know the PPC industry are simply scammers and now, it seems that the BPA have become the biggest waste of space in the parking industry. And IPC/IAS well, the Red Cow bunch of cowboys are the biggest joke of all.

[/URL]

I wouldn't mind the income of some of these struggling cowboys !!

beamerguy

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I wouldn't mind the income of some of these struggling cowboys !!

just become scammer dad, the government allows it