NTK from an IPC company - help required please

gmthesecond69

First, thanks for all the great information you provide. I’ve soaked up a lot but still have some doubts about how to tailor a response to a PPC that accounts for some specific circumstances.

A relative has just been issued with a Notice to Keeper from an IPC company for a purported parking infringement in the grounds of my leasehold property. The Keeper’s car was ticketed while parked legitimately in a marked Visitor space for a ‘breach of terms and conditions displayed’ making a ’contractual payment charge now payable’.

Having received no response to the NTD, the PPC is now "inviting" the Keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details, neither of which will be happening. Unlike the NTD, there is no mention on the NTK of the basis of that charge other than ‘Unable to read permit’.

I have looked at the template NTK response on the Newbies thread for IPC companies, but have a couple of key arguments not shown there which I feel are perhaps relevant in this instance.

Firstly, as the property leaseholder and therefore owner of the parking pass, I know the car WAS displaying this ‘valid’ permit on the dashboard. The PPC state the expiry date couldn’t be seen but I can’t verify that claim as the photo on the NTK only shows the rear of the car. In any case, ensuring the date is visible is not listed as a requirement on either the pass or signage, which only state that the pass must be ‘displayed clearly’.

Secondly, the lease to my property specifically enshrines as an ‘Included Right’, the 'full right and liberty' for Visitors of the leaseholder to park a vehicle in any of the marked visitor spaces for up to 24 hours. There is no requirement in my lease for a visitor permit to be displayed and never has been. These are purely ‘rules’ conjured up by the PPC, which was brought in by the managing agents within the last few years. Before that, no Visitors' permits were ever displayed.

I’ve seen lots of advice for leaseholders’ ticketed in their own spaces but this is slightly different as I do not have ‘ownership’ of the visitors’ spaces - only a legal right to share them - so I wasn’t intending to look into the ‘trespass’ angle.

Finally, I do not believe the NTK complies with POFA and it says nothing about using POFA to pursue the Keeper. In particular, the PPC is asking for the driver’s details or Keeper's payment right now, rather than informing the Keeper they will be pursued for the money if it's unpaid after another 28 days.

Away from POFA, the NTK also states that as the driver has missed the 21 day deadline for an appeal to the PPC, the 'opportunity has now lapsed'. This seems unfair considering this may well be the first the Keeper has heard of the charge they are being 'invited' to pay. To appeal, the Keeper has to have a plea for ‘exceptional circumstances’ accepted. If the PPC decides to consider the appeal, then rejects it, the Keeper ‘may then appeal’ to the IAS (which we know not to bother with).

So if the PPC refuses to accept the ‘exceptional circumstances’ and allow a ‘late’ appeal, then there is actually no opportunity to challenge the validity of the charge at all! That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Thanks for sticking with this and sorry it's all pretty dry stuff - I know precise wording is important. Any thoughts are welcome but these are my main questions...

- As the Keeper is elderly and would prefer not to be bombarded with endless threats from the PPC, is there any way that I, as the leaseholder of the property concerned, can contest this on their behalf? Or is it better to simply reply as the Keeper? In the unlikely event that this went to court, is somebody else allowed to present the Keeper’s case?

- Can we initially demand the charge is cancelled purely on our 2 main arguments: the lease over-riding all else and the fact that, in any case, solely for the convenience of the PPC and not as an acceptance of their authority, a current permit WAS being displayed? (It’s that aspect which has made this whole process even more annoying!).

- Or, must those arguments be incorporated into the template letter from the Newbies’ section? Could the requests for information the template letter contains wait until the moment, if it arrives, when the PPC says it is pursuing court action?

- If I’m right and POFA hasn’t been complied with, then am I correct in thinking only the driver could be pursued and that no one is in any way compelled to reveal who the driver was?

- Finally, less important for now, but if the PPC is making no attempt to comply with POFA, could they be barred from accessing details from the DVLA in future? Because that would be very satisfying.

Many thanks.

hoohoo

Its quite handy that no appeal is allowed because the IAS is a kangaroo court anyway.

I would write to the operator as the keeper, and help the real keeper through this. You can represent them in court, (if it got that far) but they would have to be present.

Dear Idiots*,
I am the keeper of the vehicle. I understand from the NTK that no appeal is allowed. As your notice to keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012 I am not liable. Additionally the vehicle was there with the permission of the landowner and their lease overrides any subsequent conditions. In any case, the vehicle was displaying a correct permit and not contravening any conditions.

I would be prepared to use alternative debt resolution to attempt to settle the matter, and suggest the Consumer Ombudsman as a suitable body. For the avoidance of doubt I will not consider the IAS who have widely been exposed as a kangaroo court and have zero credibility. I refer you to the numerous cases which easily can be found on the internet.

I point out that courts may apply sanctions to parties who ignore an offer or unreasonably refuse to use ADR.

Failing that, I suggest we use the courts to settle the matter without delay. Please follow practice directions and stat e the basis of your claim. I will then reply setting out my case. As the debt is denied debt collection will be wasted costs on your part.


By the way, POFA is only for establishing keeper liability. Operators are free to use it or not, as they wish, but if they don't they can only pursue the driver.

*Replace with real PPC name**
**As you will want this letter in front of a judge if it comes to that

There is such a thing as a Norwich Pharmacol order, which Excel Parking used in the past to compel the naming of the persons a vehicle was leased to. They boast about it every so often, but the joke is on them because they spent a lot of money on getting it, and it didn't really help them - the person who leases a car is not necessarily the driver.

gmthesecond69

Hoohoo, that’s a fabulous answer - really useful. Thank so much. I feel like I’m finally getting my head around this.

This then is my plan.. if anyone is able to confirm I'm not dropping us in it inadvertently, that would be great!

- Use the framework of Hoohoo’s letter as a first response to the PPC but, as the keeper is claiming no liability for non-compliance, not until 28 days after the arrival of the NTK . I’m sure I read somewhere this is important to prevent the PPC issuing a re-worded NTK within the statutory time limits?

- Bizarre as it sounds, although it should be the strongest argument of all, is there any danger in including the information that a valid permit was displayed? Might it be taken as an indication the Keeper was driving and undermine the NTK defence?

- Once 28 days from the NTK have elapsed, also email the DVLA citing non-compliance with POFA and request that they get the ticket cancelled.

- ignore all debt collecting nonsense.

- Come back for some expert help if genuine court papers are served.

System

Dear Idiots*,

*Replace with real PPC name**
**As you will want this letter in front of a judge if it comes to that

Now where have you seen that before when the OP came unstuck. Did you get that information?

gmthesecond69

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Now where have you seen that before when the OP came unstuck. Did you get that information?

Were you asking me that question? Bit confused... it's easily done!

Herzlos

gmthesecond69 wrote: »

The Keeper’s car was ticketed while parked legitimately in a marked Visitor space for a ‘breach of terms and conditions displayed’ making a ’contractual payment charge now payable’.

That's interesting; a breach of terms can never result in a contractual payment. Is that exactly what they wrote?

Coupon-mad

gmthesecond69 wrote: »

Were you asking me that question? Bit confused... it's easily done!

No he was asking hoohoo, no worries. All a bit tongue in cheek.

gmthesecond69

Herzlos wrote: »

That's interesting; a breach of terms can never result in a contractual payment. Is that exactly what they wrote?

The exact wording is that their officer 'had reason to believe that the following breach of terms and conditions displayed had occurred and that a contractual payment charge is now payable'. And then they claim they were unable to read the permit's expiry date.

From other threads, I had a feeling those 2 things might be mutually exclusive which is the reason I mentioned it - but I must admit I don't really understand why.

gmthesecond69

One (possibly!) final question: in Hoohoo's letter, what does 'follow practice directions' mean? Is that just a short-hand way of asking them to provide answers to the questions in the Newbies' template letter: i.e. show what they're claiming for, provide the paper trail which proves they have the right to act for the landowner etc?

Actually, that's 2 questions. Sorry!

Coupon-mad

He's not an officer.

Breach is when you do something that's disallowed. A charge for breach of terms means if there is any loss or damage caused, the innocent party (e.g. the landowner) can pursue that loss or a genuine pre-estimate of the typical loss caused by such circumstances.

OR, after the Beavis case, a PPC can try to pursue a 'parking charge' if they can replicate the Beavis argument and show that they have a legitimate purpose (not just punishment, penalty or profit) to charge a disproportionate sum like £85. But not many cases are like Beavis which was a free retail park where the signs were considered very clear and the £85 was considered justified in that car park under those circumstances (which included the unusually attractive location and the intentions of the landowner and the need for a turnover of spaces).

A contractual payment is a different thing, you are doing something which is allowed but at a price. That says something like: 'You are allowed to park here without a permit and if you do, the charge per calendar day is £85. By parking without a permit, the driver is deemed to have accepted this offer and is contractually agreeing to pay ScammersRus that sum'.

Coupon-mad

gmthesecond69 wrote: »

One (possibly!) final question: in Hoohoo's letter, what does 'follow practice directions' mean? Is that just a short-hand way of asking them to provide answers to the questions in the Newbies' template letter: i.e. show what they're claiming for, provide the paper trail which proves they have the right to act for the landowner etc?

Actually, that's 2 questions. Sorry!

Google 'small claims court practice directions'.