Excel no NTK

Geo_Lou

OH’s vehicle received a windscreen ticket earlier this year from Excel.
Parking had been paid in full via RinGo.
RinGo app had terrible signal in the car park, so took a few attempts.
But driver entered correct reg and believed it to have gone through successfully
When got back to the vehicle there was a windscreen ticket.

It became evident that RinGo had defaulted to the reg of a previously owned vehicle.

Naively OH called Excel in an attempt to get it resolved quickly, and also avoid it going through the lease company.

They kindly :mad: told him to send proof of ownership of previous vehicle.

Proof was sent by email. Appeal was rejected. They obviously had no intention of allowing it, however in the process, it seems OH may have accidentally lead Excel to believe he had admitted being the driver, by using the forbidden words “I was..”!?!?!

Knowing he would loose, but wanting to show we’d gone through due process, we then choose to go through the ‘official’ IAS appeal process, this time referring to him only as the Keeper, of course he lost: “ the appellant admits to entering the registration of a previously owned vehicle…clear contravention…is mitigation…restricted to legal issues…lawfully enforced” etc

We were now prepared to just sit and ignore the threatening letters.

The first BW Legal standard letter has arrived, and I came back to the forum to check we were still right to ignore.

But now I understand that Excel are a particular litigious company, and it is recommended to reply to this BW Legal letter, and also keep sending letters to Excel? However all the template replies I find, in the wake of the Beavis case seem to revolve around denying keeper liability.

Note that no NTK has been received, I presume that this would be clearly headed NTK? He has only received letters related to the appeal. He may have not received a NTK because of the timings of the appeal letters, or perhaps it is because Excel feel they don’t need to send one, as they believe they have evidence as to who the driver was?

Is it a legal requirement to have the NTK? Would they have sent this to the lease company? We have heard nothing from the lease company, so assume they have received nothing.

I have read on here that the fact that payment was made in full, but an incorrect reg was entered is mitigating circumstances, and that doesn’t work with POPLA.
I know this is not POPLA, but is the same applicable? and technically the correct reg was entered, but somehow the ticket was allocated to the old reg. This seems particularly harsh, as the landowner suffered no loss.

We have already (at the time of receiving the PCN) contacted the land owner, which is not a retail park, we have had no reply.

Fruitcake

You won't get a NTK if the scammers know who was driving. That's why we always say, don't reveal the driver's identity.

Start reading up on how others have dealt with BW L threatogrammes. Unfortunately it is a very common problem.

Involve your MP. One poster got their PCN cancelled when their MP intervened. I expect the IAS rejection was anonymous. This is a breach of the UK Government ADR 2015 so you should be pointing this out to the landowner, BW L, and your MP that they have breached UK Government regulations.

Be prepared to defend a court claim if necessary, but respond and challenge everything you get from BW L.

Geo_Lou

Thank you
The email replies refer to an independent Adjudicator’s comments and are signed The Independent Appeals Service, so yes anonymous.

From looking at the forum I have listed other points to add in the reply to BW and in letters to MP and landowner:

Charge is disputed, excel failed to provide full facts to BW– an appeal was made and parking payment was made in full

IAS appeal system Kangaroo court and in breach of the UK Government ADR 2015

The unlawful £54, threaten SRA

CCJ; Misrepresentation of consequences

Signage

Didn’t consent to my details being shared - Data protection

Harassment

Will complain to landowner if not cancelled

Is it recommended to request evidence of contracts from landowner to Excel, should I leave that for now?