Parking With Ease charge - advice needed!

Carthesis

Umkomaas wrote: »

... they are working on the 'reasonable presumption' that the keeper was the driver on the day, justifying this with Elliott -v- Loake tosh.

Which they cannot in any way justify, in any way, shape or form, and as can be pointed out in both the IAS appeal (and in court, if necessary).

For reference, it doesn't apply because E-v-L was a criminal case with forensic evidence to prove who the driver was, which this case isn't and they certainly don't have the standard of evidence. Furthermore, the ex-Chief Assessor at POPLA (when it was good) has stated in the (I think 2015) report that there is no such "reasonable presumption" in PPC cases.

Personally, I'd hit them at IAS with this, primarily because it costs them money to do so; and seemingly, with the evidence you have, you'll either win, or if you don't when you go to court you'll have a slam-dunk proof that the IAS haven't correctly assessed the case.

Fredolow

Thanks for your swift input guys. They simply ignored every request I put in my original email, including completely ignoring my statement about their failure to comply with POFA 2012 with their NTK. The original NTK states that it does not know the name and address of the driver but as the keeper I'm 'invited' to either pay the unpaid charge or, if not the driver, provide details of the driver's name and address to them and pass the NTK on accordingly. It also states, on the back of the NTK, that the keepers name has been obtained from the DVLA for the purpose of enforcing the unpaid charge. There's also a 'Driver Identification Form' to fill in and send off to them.

If POFA 2012 is worth it's weight surely they have no challenge on this as they didn't get the NTK to me within the required timeframe. Am I wrong in this thinking? Isn't this clear-cut?

Is it worth me replying to PWE and demanding they respond in accordance with my original information requests and not simply ignore them? Also to get them to respond on the fact that they were late with their NTK and therefore they will now need to take this up with the driver who I am not at liberty to name?

Carthesis

Fredolow wrote: »

Thanks for your swift input guys. They simply ignored every request I put in my original email, including completely ignoring my statement about their failure to comply with POFA 2012 with their NTK. The original NTK states that it does not know the name and address of the driver but as the keeper I'm 'invited' to either pay the unpaid charge or, if not the driver, provide details of the driver's name and address to them and pass the NTK on accordingly. It also states, on the back of the NTK, that the keepers name has been obtained from the DVLA for the purpose of enforcing the unpaid charge. There's also a 'Driver Identification Form' to fill in and send off to them.

If POFA 2012 is worth it's weight surely they have no challenge on this as they didn't get the NTK to me within the required timeframe. Am I wrong in this thinking? Isn't this clear-cut?

Is it worth me replying to PWE and demanding they respond in accordance with my original information requests and not simply ignore them? Also to get them to respond on the fact that they were late with their NTK and therefore they will now need to take this up with the driver who I am not at liberty to name?

It is that clear cut, but as stated, they may claim they aren't relying on POFA and are going after the RK on the presumption that was the driver, despite there being no such presumption or inference. It presumably gets tricky if their communication is a Notice to Keeper in the first place. It does sound like they're trying it on and hoping to trip you up.

You can try responding to them again - it certainly doesn't hurt your case in any way that i can see - but they will almost certainly just ignore you completely. Then you need to decide if you want to bother with IAS or not.

Coupon-mad

I know why people don't recommend the IAS appeal, but if you're sure (SURE!) about the dates all stacking up, then I don't see the harm in presenting the case to IAS with that as the sole appeal point

We've tried before and people still lose unless they:

- can PROVE they were not driving (e.g. airline tickets showing they were abroad, that sort of evidence is what the IAS would expect)

and

- include a clear full copy of BOTH sides of the PCN proving the dates on it. I've seen a case where the PPC deliberately failed to include a copy in their evidence for the IAS which gave the IAS the 'excuse' of blaming the appellant consumer for not providing a copy, so the appellant lost (of course).

You'd only win if there's a miracle. I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.

Fredolow

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You'd only win if there's a miracle. I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT.

Thanks... but if this is the case... then what is my best next course of action?

Coupon-mad

Read post #3 of the NEWBIES thread which explains all this. Nothing, no next step*. Don't pay, don't appeal to the alleged 'kangaroo court'.

Sit tight, read the NEWBIES thread post #3 and come back if you get court papers or a solicitor's Letter before Claim.



* EDIT, my mistake, there is ONE major next step:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5524754

DO THAT!

Let your MP and Mrs May hear about how this awful threat is affecting you and what you think about the rotten greedy 'parking industry'! Write your own or use the template provided by the BMPA.

Fredolow

Thanks Coupon-mad. Your help is appreciated. I'd already considered contacting my MP if this progresses further, but perhaps now is a good time. I'm also thinking of replying to PWE and restating what they ignored from my first email, even though I don't expect to get a reply. It shows that I have been willing to review the evidence and that they have been unwilling to send it.

I'm also wondering, as a self-employed individual, at what point I can start invoicing them for wasting my time?