Quick Question regarding PoFA compliance

pvt

Have received a NtK from PCM for an alleged parking charge. I was not the driver.

In PoFA it says the notice must specify the 'period' the car was parked. The notice just gives a time and date when the PCN was issued, rather than a period of time during which it was observed to be parked.

So is the notice compliant if the company is going to rely on PoFA?

Umkomaas

Does not meet PoFA requirements, but you will have to argue it. It is not the strongest PoFA argument but not a reason not to make it. But I bet there's more wrong. Check the ntk pedantically against this.

http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability/

Fruitcake

Please confirm the name of the parking company, then follow the advice in the NEWBIES thread. If this is an IPC member, it may not make any difference to the initial appeal outcome what you put in it, but the more holes you pick in the NTK the better chance it will be cancelled (but don't hold your breath) and the less likely it is they will try court.

pvt

Thanks Unkomaas. I had a look on the Prankster's site and the only other thing I can spot is they have not stated who the creditor is.

Fruitcake, the company is PCM (UK) Ltd. And I am following the advice in the newbies thread. I will now wait 3 weeks and then send in a response. I just needed to know if the response should just have the questions as there the newbies thread, or whether it is pertinent to point out at this time that they haven't specified the period of parking.

Coupon-mad

Be careful, not 3 weeks with PCM I think? Does the NTK only say 21 days, or is it 28 to challenge - not that it matters, always declined of course.

This is PCM's calibre, one of the lowest knuckle-dragging ex-clamper firms you could hope to have let loose near your cars:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sh3sr

whether it is pertinent to point out at this time that they haven't specified the period of parking.

That and the 'lack of identified creditor' will get precisely nowhere.

pvt

Thanks Coupon,

"Representations must reach us by not later than the last day of the period of 28 days after the date on which this notice is given...etc.etc."

Then the appeal to IAS is 21 days thereafter and only if you comply with their internal appeals procedure.

Your comment regarding the lack of identified creditor and unspecified period getting me nowhere; do you mean as representation and IAS appeal points, or even in court? I would have presumed those two points would stand up in court though?

Umkomaas

Your comment regarding the lack of identified creditor and unspecified period getting me nowhere; do you mean as representation and IAS appeal points, or even in court? I would have presumed those two points would stand up in court though?

They really haven't been silver bullet winning points previously, as much as we would have liked them to have been. Judges generally are fairly ignorant of the minutiae of PoFA and it's what I alluded to in my post #2 where I said:

Does not meet PoFA requirements, but you will have to argue it.

I'll add to that '.......... especially at court, where judges have rather glossed over some of the finer points of PoFA'.

Coupon-mad

In our (very thorough) experience, you would be far more likely to win in court due to:

- dodgy signs, and/or

- Gladstones mucking it up.

POFA arguments have their place where a PPC doesn't comply at all (e.g. Excel in the past) but I cannot see that nit-picking a basically 'substantially compliant' NTK would impress most Judges. Better to defend on the usual honest points of 'no contract formed by awful signage' and 'no landowner authority' and to show the case as being very different from Beavis - i.e. not commercially justified. Then sit back and wait for Gladstones to drop the ball, in due course.

pvt

I appreciate the guidance.

The reason I thought the "period" point was significant is that the driver was parked for a very short period of time - about the time it would take them to dive into a Doctor's surgery and pick up a pre-prepared prescription form from reception, for example.

Surely there has to be a period given, if for nothing else a defence might be that the car was parked for less time than it would take to read the signage.

It is also surely material in the commercially justified argument, charging £100 for 120 seconds of parking is manifestly unreasonable, and clearly not something that a motorist would have contractually agreed to.

Can you elaborate on the "dodgy signs" bit? Are you referring to positioning, letter sizing etc., or to the nature of the contract and terms they're claiming was entered into? This was not a car park so there is no opportunity to otherwise pay, so the construed charge is clearly a penalty.

Many thanks and I appreciate the wisdom.

Coupon-mad

The reason I thought the "period" point was significant is that the driver was parked for a very short period of time - about the time it would take them to dive into a Doctor's surgery and pick up a pre-prepared prescription form from reception, for example.

Surely there has to be a period given, if for nothing else a defence might be that the car was parked for less time than it would take to read the signage.

We don't disagree, but it won't be likely to convince a Judge that the NTK isn't a POFA one. However, that argument does have legs in terms of showing that the signs were in small print and not obvious, nor offering parking at all.

Can you elaborate on the "dodgy signs" bit? Are you referring to positioning, letter sizing etc., or to the nature of the contract and terms they're claiming was entered into? This was not a car park so there is no opportunity to otherwise pay, so the construed charge is clearly a penalty.

As above, the signs were in small print and not obvious, nor offering parking at all - no offer, no contract. Like this one:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

Prohibiting parking means there was no contract agreed at all. This can only ever be a matter of trespass, not agreed contract, and the Beavis decision confirms that trespass remains a matter of actual loss/damages to be claimed only by a landowner in possession of title in the land.

Not a third party parking firm twisting ''trespass'' to pretend a contract existed.

Can you get a picture of the sign to show us?

pvt

Thanks again Coupon.

I'll dust off my Brownie and go fetch some urban landscape pictures.

:-)