Notice to Keeper issued after 20 days

Guys_Dad

1. Ask the DVLA to confirm the date they received the application.
2. Confirm that you are not driving a lease car registered to a 3rd party.

Ambsambs

It clearly states when they received the application and the date that Sheild received the information back from them (3 days). Also, it wasn't 7 days, it was 15 days they waited to sent the letter after the information was received by the DVLA!

I wasn't driving. I am the keeper.

Guys_Dad

Can you confirm that the car is registered with the DVLA in your name and not a 3rd party hirer/rental co.

Ambsambs

Yes the car is in my name

Guys_Dad

Ambsambs wrote: »

Yes the car is in my name

Thanks - just covering all eventualities.

twhitehousescat

shield have direct electronic access via the kadoe link , there was probably NOT a delay by the DVLA , the delay was caused by their own administration department and 3rd class postage ,

they have failed to meet POFa2012 rulings and can only go for the driver , unless the OP admits to driving

DoaM

The reality is ... it doesn't matter WHY the NTK arrived late; it is a simple FACT that it arrived late therefore POFA has not been complied with.

Coupon-mad

DoaM wrote: »

The reality is ... it doesn't matter WHY the NTK arrived late; it is a simple FACT that it arrived late therefore POFA has not been complied with.

^^^^^ This. It doesn't matter what delayed it and why they failed. The fact is, there can be no keeper liability.

Just do a decent POPLA appeal and show us (templates are in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread).

Ambsambs

I have already submitted my appeal and the operator has submitted their evidence too. It's now at the stage where I can comment on Sheild's evidence. Their argument is that the DVLA prevented them from issuing the PCN sooner, however they have provided a screenshot of their records which clearly shows they applied for the keeper's information from the DVLA and received it 4 days later, then it took them 15 days to send the NTK. Apologies if I've repeated anything I have previously said.

My response is going to be this:
"The operator states that "DVLA delays prevented the NTK been produced within 14 days". (Terrible grammar/spelling by them, not me (not putting this in the appeal!)). However, evidence submitted by the operator clearly shows details were requested and responded to in 4 days by the DVLA. It was the operator's own fault the NTK was not sent out in time to conform to POFA 2012, as it took them 15 days from receiving my details as the keeper to send the NTK through the post.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. I am the 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."

I have a 2000 word limit as I am appealing online so had to cut a bit out of the #3 post.

I would appreciate any comments anyone has to help! Thanks

Guys_Dad

I like this clear letter.

Personally, I would have added that what the PPC is claiming is mitigating circumstances and draw POPLA's attention to their own web site.

If you have appealed to POPLA on the grounds of mitigating circumstances (a reason beyond your control that prevented you from fulfilling the Terms and Conditions of the parking contract), it is less likely that your appeal will be successful. This is because POPLA is not able to allow an appeal for mitigating circumstances. In the event that the assessor finds a mitigating circumstance to be the reason for the parking charge being issued, the assessor can request the parking operator to consider this, but cannot enforce it. If a parking operator has already rejected your appeal based on the mitigating circumstance you plan to bring to POPLA, it is unlikely it will agree to it the second time around.

It would hardly be fair for POPLA to allow PPCs mitigation whilst denying it to drivers.