Just received a PCN and confuse

gb1962

Hello again.

I have put the following appeal together based on the IPC appeal letter in the Newbie section and wonder if I could receive some feedback on it:

Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}

Re PCN number:

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. I believe that this PCN this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified.

I was not the driver of the car at the time and date mentioned in your PCN and am under no obligation to give details of who the driver was.

I would like to inform you that you have not conformed to POFa 2012 within your PCN, and as such you should now send correspondence to the driver.

Please do not send me any further communication apart from a confirmation that you will not pursue this PCN any further.

Your faithfully,

GB

Is this concise and waterproof enough?

Thanks :-)

hoohoo

Yes. if you can send some proof you were not the driver that would be even better (but not necessary)

Redx

but if you were the driver, do not lie about it


just put some words like PG said instead

such as

Dear {name of IPC member, only IPC members for this version!!!}

Re PCN number:

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. I believe that this PCN this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified.

I would like to inform you that you have not conformed to POFA 2012 within your PCN, and as such you should now send correspondence to the driver.

I am the keeper of this vehicle and am under no obligation to give details of who the driver actually was at the time and date in your notice to keeper.

Please do not send me any further communication apart from a confirmation that you will not pursue this PCN any further.

Your faithfully,

GB

however, the IPC template includes much more that is missing from your appeal

Re PCN number:

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge, issued under an alleged contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle.

If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.

However, in my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to such contact and to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your costs which are not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable.

Yours faithfully,

so adapt it further and add more details from the above

gb1962

Hi,

Thank you for the help - I'll adapt the appeal and add in some more details.

I wasn't the driver on that day, but what would be accepted as proof that I wasn't the driver?

Re: the POFA 2012 Act (sorry to bring this up again but I'm still a bit unclear on this ) - there's no mention of this on the PCN so are they still bound by the act?

I also found the following statement in another appeal letter - is it worth adding this is as well?

'Your Parking Charge Notice constitutes an invoice for payment. Accordingly your invoiced charge must include an element of VAT. However, your Notice does not state either a VAT registration number or an invoice reference number and so cannot constitute a lawfully valid demand for payment.'

Thanks :-)

GB

Redx

ok, if you were NOT the driver on the day then thats fine, you can say so

they are bound by the act IF they are chasing the keeper of the vehicle , hence why its go forth and multiply and chase the driver, who shall not be named

they are either confused or trying subterfuge to try and make you responsible because they have no proof who the driver is, not unless you were foolish enough to tell them the drivers details

they are prsuming (assumptions) that the keeper and the driver are one and the same

they sent the NTK to you, the keeper, because they dont know who was driving. they would have to prove you were driving , or it be greater than 50% on the balance of probabilities that you were the driver

this is why they are chasing you, because they have the keepers details only

so even if they are not using the act, the act requires them to only chase the keeper if POFA rules are met (but many use these scare tactics to extort money from keepers, or to try to, so dont fall for it)

dont bother trying to understand their side, keep it simple ,

I was not the driver, you failed pofa , so f.r.o. , ok ?

this will be your mantra throughtout this saga, which may last for 6 years as that is the length of time they could try a court case in civil court

so as keeper, maintain your stance and do not name the driver , its their job to prove their case , but if you had proof of being elsewhere at the time, say in greece, use that proof to your advantage

as I have never seen , or rarely seen , anything from this PPC, I cannot answer your specifics as their NTK may differ to other NTK,s

your main issue is , "I WAS NOT THE DRIVER, YOU FAILED POFA2012, stop mithering me , the driver will not be named"

gb1962

Hi Redx - thank you - I think the penny's finally dropped with your explanation :-)

Is this single point on non-compliance with the POFA 12 enough to win an appeal - I've tried to find appeal cases on the forum that have been won on a non-compliant NTK/PCN but haven't found any details yet.

GB

Umkomaas

gb1962 wrote: »

Hi Redx - thank you - I think the penny's finally dropped with your explanation :-)

Is this single point on non-compliance with the POFA 12 enough to win an appeal - I've tried to find appeal cases on the forum that have been won on a non-compliant NTK/PCN but haven't found any details yet.

GB

It might do with the university where you would expect more grey matter and rationality over a common-or-garden private parking weasel whose only income derives from hustling, hassling and relieving you of your cash.

But with all IPC AOS members, none rely totally on PoFA and keeper liability. They work primarily on the (spurious) presumption that the keeper was the driver, unless the keeper is initially taken in by a non-compliant NtK and believes he/she is liable and stumps up. The business model is to conflate and confuse the unwary/naive.

Their NtK will undoubtedly have been copied from the IPC template. Could you post up a redacted copy of it (use Photobucket to host then copy and paste the URL, but change http to hxxp and regulars will convert - newbies don't initially have live linking privileges). Let's see what they've got to say!

So try it, but my gut feeling is that it will be rejected and if you went to second stage appeal with the IAS it would almost certainly be rejected. BUT - no need to pay as the decision is only binding on the PPC.

gb1962

Hi - yes I'll scan it and upload it this evening. But it sounds like using the late NTK argument is weak even though they're non-compliant with POFA 2012 and in breach of the IPC Code of Conduct which they'e signed up to?

Thanks - GB

Redx

it may be weak for the PPC

it may even be weak at the biased IAS unless you had actual proof that you were elsewhere

its strong if it came to a court case, because the court is not biased in favour of the parking company, unlike the parking company and the IPC and IAS (who are biased and operate kangaroo "courts")

gb1962

Hello again.

These are the links to the front and back of the PCN - I've redacted it:

hxxp://s1160.photobucket.com/user/gb1962/media/lu/front_zpsbkrmiy2s.jpg.html

hxxp://s1160.photobucket.com/user/gb1962/media/lu/back_zpshf3v4ts3.jpg.html

GB