UKPS TNC Notice to keeper over 200 days later

bimma

Final draft?


My details:
details of PCN,
date: 01/07/16 PCN number …………….
issued by UK parking solutions
vehicle reg …………………

* As registered keeper I wish to appeal this PCN. I was not the driver at the date/time of the alleged contravention and I am not liable for the parking charge notice on the grounds submitted in this appeal.

* Parking charge notice to driver originally issued by UK parking solutions (BPA member, registered as T R Luckins Ltd) on 01/07/16

* I am the registered keeper of the named vehicle and was not the driver therefore had no knowledge of this parking charge until January 2017.

* The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

Notice to keeper issued by TNC Parking Services, BPA member

Please see evidence document scan of the Notice to keeper, dated 12/01/17. Also postage envelope dated 17/01/17 from TNC Parking issuing the Notice to Keeper,
(posted 5 days later). Received 19/01/17. which is 203 days after the alleged contravention by the driver (01/07/16).

Therefore clearly exceeding the 56 day time frame of POFA.

* The v888/2 copy of the application from TNC to DVLA for keeper details shows date of application was 23/12/2016 again proving it was clearly over the time period to hold registered keeper liable under POFA.

* Yet POFA clearly states that for there to be keeper liability the notice to keeper must be issued within 56 days of the original notice to driver.

* The parking company UKPS or TNC have not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the date and time of the alleged contravention. And simply because I received the Notice to keeper 203 days after the event I cannot possibly remember who was driving my car at a specific day over 8 months ago! As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were I submit I am not liable to any charge.

* The creditor must follow the procedures set out in PoFA Schedule 4 to achieve the benefits of 'keeper liability' as described.

* In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

* In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the registered keeper appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

* As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

* The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

* Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert Barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

* Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

* This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

''I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.''

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) ''The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.’


* Schedule 4 paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) of PoFA specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

* A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either
* (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or
* (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked

* Therefore the NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given.

* As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK in the correct time, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

* Also as TNC are a member of the BPA, I believe they have breached the code of conduct and acted unlawfully in getting my details from DVLA,

* And UKPS are stating that as the registered keeper of the vehicle I am liable for the parking charge when I am not.

* TNC parking services is a trading name for TNC Management Ltd (please see footer of the Notice to keeper ) which are a BPA member hence should have used v888/3 to get the registered keeper details from DVLA in order to pursue the parking charge

* But they have circumnavigated rules as the copy of the v888/2 form attached clearly shows they are saying they are debt collectors getting details to chase a debt but actually using the information to issue a notice to keeper in which case they should have

a) used the correct form and b) declared they are TNC parking when applying

* With reference to the V888/2 form attached I will say as follows:

TNC collections: Type of Company: Debt collections agency
Name of body : they put BPA , correct they are a member of the BPA ATA and as such must use V888/3

reason: driver has failed to pay for parking charge notice or provide written appeal within 14 days

use of information: information will be used to contact the registered keeper to obtain payment.

FALSE, the information was used to send a Notice To Keeper which is attached as evidence

They have quoted that they are a debt collection agency , when they are clearly a BPA ATA member and use the name "TNC Parking Services" as shownon notice to keeper

on the dvla site, it states use of forms as:
Form An individual Form V888
A company Form V888/2
A company that issues parking or trespass charge notices Form V888/3

So TNC are clearly breaking DVLA /Data protection rules by using v888/2 as a private company , when they should as BPA ATA members be using v888/3

NO parking company getting details for a parking charge are allowed to use v888/2 , they HAVE to declare their actual interest and use v888/3

Following my appeal as the Registered keeper informing UK Parking Solutions that I was not the driver and there is no keeper liability due to the PoFA not being complied to with regards issuing the NTK with the specified time frame ,

* The rejection letter from UKPS wrongly informs me the registered keeper that I as registered keeper am "fully liable" for a non-POFA charge: please see page 2 of the rejection letter where I have highlighted their statement.

* This is a serious breach of the BPA CoP for a parking operator to tell a keeper they are liable when they are not. and also deemed by me as a unlawfull threat/demand.

* When POFA (2012) is not utilised correctly/lawfully, the parking operator is not able to claim that the Keeper of a vehicle is liable for the parking charge notice.

* The rejection letter is telling a keeper that they are 'fully liable' for a non-POFA PCN from July 2016, where TNC have only recently bothered to get the data via the dubious excuse of being a 'debt collector' despite in fact using the data to issue a parking charge NTK, not for purposes of debt collection stage.

Based on the above there is No keeper liability ,

Further grounds of appeal


* Lack of signage. There is no visible signage on road . (various pictures of location attached as evidence to show there are no visible signage on the road to inform the driver of the parking conditions)

* No evidence of contract. I require UKPS to provide a full copy of the, signed and dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for UKPS merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.

In the absence of any evidence of contract as above it is my case that they lack any or sufficient proprietary interest in the land.

Due to the conditions named above not being met this PCN should rightfully be cancelled as there is no keeper liability .

In conclusion, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and that the charge is dismissed.

Coupon-mad

Yes and I recommend embedding those scans & pics into the PDF, making it super-long and illustrated like a nice story. Not uploading scans & evidence one by one so that the Assessor has to skip between uploads to see what you are saying.

Then just upload the single PDF under 'other' on the awful POPLA website

The POPLA appeal should win purely on the no keeper liability argument.

bimma

i have scanned the NTK and V888/2 /rejection letter as pdf. willy they need to be converted as jpeg to paste into word doc and then covert the whole word doc to pdf?

Coupon-mad

You could try converting them or simply screenshot them and see if that shows as a decent, readable version when cropped, shaped and then pasted into the appeal at the right place.

bimma

ok, ill past them in as jpegs to the document itself and submit them as single pdfs just in case sperately and make a note in the appeal

thanks for your help guys. couldnt have done it without you. will be submitted this week and will keep updated

twhitehousescat

add them and clearly number them (scan 1 , 2 , etc) and clearly mark your appeal , "see scan 1 , etc etc "

bimma

almost ready to submit appeal now.
pages numbered. all contain header with pcn ref and popla reference
copy and pasted jpgs of relevant documents and pics of location/map
will attach seperate pdfs of NTK, V888/2, rejection letter, further letter demanding increased amount whilst at appeal stage.

will convert the main word document into a pdf to upload on to popla

just wanted to ask. once it asks for details of appeal...shall i just put i was not the driver and there is no keeper liability due to the reasons given in the attached appeal. please refer to the pdf documents for details and evidence...rather than copy and paste the whole lot into box?

twhitehousescat

are we taking bets ?

do you "actually" think they will fight it??

"the operator presented no evidence"


its to "mucky" for them , to many of thier actions could be mentioned if this got to court ,

bimma

do you "actually" think they will fight it??

even if they do, i think ive got enough to win,
from what ive been reading about this over past 4 weeks or so, and your knowledge and input , i think its a winner :beer:

twhitehousescat

I know !!!!!! all , I,m just a baby cat , with big ears


good luck!