PCN appeal rejected

Wanger

Hi,
I received a PCN in the post on the 04/08/2016 in relation my car being parked outside the bay in a next carpark. I wasn't the driver but the car is registered to me.
I sent an appeal letter to them basically stating that I was not the driver, and that as I had not received the PCN within 14 days (date of the 'offence' was the 16/07/16, letter not received until the 04/08/16) I was not liable as the driver as they had not stuck by the rules set by the POFA.
The letter was the template from this site stating until they answered the points I would not be replying.

I have received a appeal rejections letter stating that they have photographic evidence of the car being parked incorrectly and there are plenty of signs but they make no mention of the 14 day matter.

Can anyone advise the best course of action. My plan now was rather than appeal to the IAS, make no further reply to the company.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Quentin

Yes, that's the advice here (see newbies faq thread near the top of the forum)


(You should complain to next and ask them to get it cancelled though)

But don't ignore any court correspondence you get

Wanger

Thanks for the reply,

I just wanted to check I've got the appeal correct. The date was the 16/07/16. The PPC have dated the NTK the 29/07/16 however the post mark on the envelope is the 01/08/16, sent 2nd class post arriving on the 04/08/16. This means the NTK was delivered 19 days after the initial date of the 16/07/16.

Does this mean it has not been received within the required 14 days as per guidelines set in the POFA.

Thanks

Castle

29th July was a Friday, so the date of receipt is deemed to be two working days later, which will mean Tuesday 2nd August; (which is day 17), so it's too late to use POFA.

bod1467

It took me 2 or 3 reads to understand exactly what the last part of post #4 was saying - it means the PPC have failed.

Basically ... the NTK was out of time to transfer liability to the keeper under POFA2012. (And almost certainly that was only ONE of the deficiencies in the NTK versus POFA).

Wanger

Given that I'll be ignoring any further correspondence

Redx

Wanger wrote: »

Given that I'll be ignoring any further correspondence

no you wont !!!

you will IGNORE ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE , unless its the following

an LBC

an MCOL

the PPC has 6 years to file a court case

Wanger

Redx wrote: »

no you wont !!!

you will IGNORE ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE , unless its the following

an LBC

an MCOL

the PPC has 6 years to file a court case

Thanks for the advice, hopefully it won't get that far

Johno100

Wanger wrote: »

Thanks for the advice, hopefully it won't get that far

Yes hopefully, but as you haven't told us who the PPC is nobody can really give you even an educated guess at to which way it is likely to play out.

Wanger

It ES parking enforcement ltd

Wanger

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes hopefully, but as you haven't told us who the PPC is nobody can really give you even an educated guess at to which way it is likely to play out.

It ES parking enforcement ltd.