Invalid NTK - Advice

Poplaappeal

Hi All,

I'm just about to submit a Popla appeal and just want to check the NTK section is ok, as I've read through the template/examples threads but most seem to be received too late (or never at all) but never too early.

"I submit the points below to show that the I am not liable for the parking charge:

1. No keeper liability under pofa 2012
2. Unreasonable and unfair terms – no contract agreed to pay £100
3. Inadequate signage
4. No genuine pre-estimate of loss
5. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
6. Unlawful Penalty Charge
7. Notwithstanding the permit was on display towards the rear of the vehicle

1) NO KEEPER LIABILITY UNDER POFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability

As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle, a NTK is required to be issued no sooner than 28 days after, or no later than 56 days after the service of that notice. This stipulation is laid out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

The alleged infringement occurred on 02/01/2016 and it is understood that the NTK was required to reach the registered keeper no earlier than 31/01/2016 and no later than 29/02/2016. A NTK was issued by a third party, Parking Collection Services who allege they were acting on behalf of Secure-a-Space, dated 18/01/2016. and received on 23/01/2016 (attached). Therefore the conditions set out by paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 have not been complied with, and there can be no keeper liability. As a result I request that Secure-A-Space Ltd provide evidence to POPLA of who the driver was.

Additionally the NTK is not compliant as it does not adequately identify the car park in question. It simply states “New Capital Quay”, which is a large development and encompasses a number of car parks which are paid for, notably a Waitrose car park immediately to the left of the residents car parking space which shares a common entrance roller.

The keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with, where the appellant is the Registered Keeper, as in this case. One of these requirements is the issue of a NTK compliant with certain provisions. This operator failed to serve any NTK in the required time limits and to a sufficient accuracy. As there has been no admission as to who may have parked the car and no evidence of this person has been produced by the operator, it has been held by POPLA multiple times in 2015 that a parking charge with no NTK cannot be enforced against the registered keeper."

I would appreciate your thoughts and guidance.

The_Slithy_Tove

Not answering your direct question, but ...

If point #6 mentions GPEOL, then remove it! Thw ParkingEye v Beavis Supreme Court judgement turned the whole penalty/GPEOL thing on its head, so a more focussed point needs to be made, e.g. how Beavis doesn't apply here.

Since you've not provided any detail about the actual parking event, or what's happened since then, it's hard to provide any clear cut answers.

Poplaappeal

The background is a resident parking space where the permit fell down. I have gone into the Bevis case extensively and how it does not apply in my case (how can a paid for car park be compared to a leaseholder space where I paid £20k for the space, the judge even says this does not apply to any other cases), but its rather exhaustive so I didn't want to waste anyone's time on it I felt the NTK is the strongest appeal point given their failure to serve correctly.

Are you aware of any other examples where it was sent early? I found one and it said I should report them for breaking data privacy laws as the DVLA should not have released the details before 28 days.

nigelbb

Poplaappeal wrote: »

The background is a resident parking space where the permit fell down. I have gone into the Bevis case extensively and how it does not apply in my case (how can a paid for car park be compared to a leaseholder space where I paid £20k for the space, the judge even says this does not apply to any other cases), but its rather exhaustive so I didn't want to waste anyone's time on it I felt the NTK is the strongest appeal point given their failure to serve correctly.

Beavis did not involve a paid car park. Crucially it was a free car park that required a time limit for parking to ensure a turnover of cars visiting the retailers. Beavis is utterly different to either a paid car park our a leaseholder parked in their own space. It's an entirely novel contract and the Supreme Court bent the law on the doctrine of penalties to the point of breaking to justify it but only in that very specific case.

Coupon-mad

Not sure your timings are right. Was there ever a windscreen PCN?

Does the PCS letter refer to a windscreen PCN?

Is the PCS letter a NTO (blue I think) or NTK (brownish I think...may have got them the wrong way round so would need to see)?

Please don't rush POPLA as that set of headings tells me you've based it on an old POPLA appeal. Only go by recent ones from 2016. Read a few on the first ten pages or so, and copy from what they are saying. Then show us a full draft POPLA appeal even if it takes you just past 28 days.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not sure your timings are right. Was there ever a windscreen PCN?

Does the PCS letter refer to a windscreen PCN?

Is the PCS letter a NTO (blue) or NTK (brownish)?

Please don't rush POPLA as that set of headings tells me you've based it on an old POPLA appeal. Only go by recent ones from 2016. Read a few on the first ten pages or so, and copy from what they are saying. Then show us a full draft POPLA appeal even if it takes you just past 28 days.

OP says in section 1, "As a Notice to Driver was provided on the vehicle ..." so they are saying there was a windscreen ticket.


Poplaapeeal, I think you have missed out the word "not" from this line in your third paragraph, "Additionally the NTK is not complaint as it does adequately identify the car park in question ..."


I think you mean "it does not adequately identify the car park ..."

Coupon-mad

Oh, interesting. Yep too early then. Still interested to know if PCS sent a NTO or a NTK because if it was the latter, they need reporting to David Dunford at the DVLA about this seriously misleading document which suggests a keeper is liable. NTOs don't say that.

PCS are DRPlus and often get this wrong and the DVLA have an interest in hearing about any examples.

Poplaappeal

"The Driver" received a ticket on the vehicle but I appealed as the "Registered keeper".

I've uploaded the NTK which was sent and clearly shows the date (I changed the dates by 2 dates in my original thread just in case they monitor it) but this is starting to sound like an incident I should report so I would appreciate your thoughts on the next course of action.

The DVLA shouldn't have given them my details should they? Given the timing of the PCN detailed on the NTK?

Poplaappeal

How do I post a link or image as a new user?

Fruitcake

Poplaappeal wrote: »

How do I post a link or image as a new user?

Upload it to a web hosting site such as tinypic or photobucket then post the URL here, but change http to hxxp. Someone here will then convert it so others can view it.


You haven't amended your post 1 as I suggested in post 6.

Poplaappeal

[IMG]hXXp://i66.tinypic.com/rc9e9e.jpg[/IMG]

and the second page
[IMG]hXXp://i68.tinypic.com/razqs2.jpg[/IMG]

Thank you Fruitcake, I've now amended the first post. Thanks for your help so far