Parking Fine - Advice

Fruitcake

ParkingFun wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake. Did my damndest not to make it painful yet somehow managed it.

Ok, I think I've corrected everything..... reading through now to double check. Images should all be good and I think I've got the ordering right now.

That looks OK now, thanks. This is a busy site and only a few regulars, so the easier you can make things for us the easier it is for us to help you.

Parking scammers monitor these fora and have been know to produce web posts in court in order to try and persuade a judge that the driver's identity has been revealed. A specific location plus date plus time will identify a keeper's identity against their username to the scammers. All it takes then is for a poster to say, I parked, and they have got the driver's identity.

ParkingFun

Fruitcake wrote: »

I'm thoroughly confused by all of this.

How can the PCN date of sending of a notice to driver left on the bike be the 24th of Jan when the date of the alleged event was the 1st of Jan?
To be left on the vehicle the date of issue must be the same. Please confirm that the PCN was the note left on the bike.

The second NTK is too late to invoke keeper liability. It must be received by day 56 starting the day after the alleged event. It wasn't sent until day 67 so must have been received after that.

Do you have any images of the OPS signs? Are there any OPS signs? If not, then complaints to the BPA and DVLA must be sent

I think you've muddled up somewhere. The first one is as follows, no PCN was left on the bike. It was posted.

OP99
Alleged offence date 03/01/2017

Postal PCN - Date of sending 25/01/2017
Postal PCN - Received 27/01/2017

NTK - Date of sending 24/02/2017
NTK - Received 27/02/2017

2. Ok so the second one which was sent out of time is invalid. Not invalid but keeper is not liable from what I've read.
3. The OPS signs are those in the link. The ones with the ruler against them.

ParkingFun

Anyway cheers for all your help Fruitcake, I've assembled 2 seperate emails to argue my case. One for each notice because they were issued in different ways.

I'll update with what I sent and the outcome in the future.

Thanks.

Fruitcake

ParkingFun wrote: »

I think you've muddled up somewhere. The first one is as follows, no PCN was left on the bike. It was posted.

2. Ok so the second one which was sent out of time is invalid. Not invalid but keeper is not liable from what I've read.
3. The OPS signs are those in the link. The ones with the ruler against them.

OK, I'll try again.

OP99
Alleged offence date 03/01/2017
Postal PCN - Date of sending 25/01/2017
Postal PCN - Received 27/01/2017
NTK - Date of sending 24/02/2017
NTK - Received 27/02/2017

A postal PCN is a NTK. It can only be sent to the keeper as the scammers don't know the name and address of the driver.
So, postal PCN (NTK) was sent/received too late for keeper liability to apply. If nothing was left on the bike then the NTK has to arrive no later than day 14, day 0 being the date of the alleged event.
If the scammers say a PCN was left on the bike but it must have been removed/blown away, then that same postal PCN (NTK) is too early as the scammers are not allowed to apply for keeper details from the DVLA until day 28, and the PCN/NTK must arrive by day 56.


Alleged offence date 05/01/2017
PCN was left on the Motorbike seat
NTK - Date of sending 16/03/2017
NTK - Received 20/03/2017

For a notice to driver (PCN left on bike) the NTK must arrive between day 28 and 56. So, NTK arrived too late for keeper liability to apply.



Do you have pics of the signs showing their location relative to where the bike was parked, and where they are in relation to any entrances and the horizon signs? In other words, would it be possible to get in and park without seeing the OPS signs, or only seeing the Horizon signs? Pics following a route where that was possible would be useful.;)

I would write to the scammers when you have all the picky info saying, as keeper, that both PCNs are outwith the POFA 2012 and therefore there is no keeper liability. FRO and contact the driver, who I will not be naming, and don't bother me again.

If you can show that OPS is the wrong company for the location where the bike was parked, then you should also complain to the BPA and DVLA, as well as your MP, Mrs May, and Andrew Jones MP, although they may be a bit distracted by other things at the moment.

ParkingFun

Yeah, cheers for that.

I did send them an email the other day. I have since heard back and have been told that they are no longer dealing with it and to contact "right hassle"

When looking around, the gates you come through to enter the grounds do have a sign displayed on either on the pillars. These again are those signs with very small writing as shown in the photos and are not at all clearly flagged as some kind of warning.

As there is no keeper liability can I force them to leave me alone?

ParkingFun

I received a response a few days ago informing me that, "Our client is not relying on POFA to pursue this parking charge notice."

What other methods are they implying could be used to pursue a PCN?

Coupon-mad

They are assuming the keeper was the driver. They try it on and hope you don't realise there is no legal way to assume a keeper was the driver in private parking cases. Many Judges in small claims do not realise, so this subterfuge works well for them.

Covered by loads of other threads where Henry Greenslade's words from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 are used to refute this 'presumption'.

ParkingFun

Had my first letter from Wright Hassall come through recently. Apparently they previously wrote to me, first I've heard of it.

Anyway the letter is headed FORMAL LETTER OF CLAIM.

Can any advise what I do in relation to a response on this one? Do I ignore and wait for a court letter (if they go that far) or do I respond now?

Thanks for everything so far.

http://imgur.com/4jr4q34 < the latest letter

Coupon-mad

Always best to search the forum about the letter you get, first, rather than ask in isolation here. I searched for the keywords: 'formal letter of claim hassall' and changed the default to ''show posts'' (NOT threads):

Showing results - 63
Search took 1.94 seconds.

The top/most recent one of the 63 very relevant results, was this:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72625085#Comment_72625085

On this forum, everything has already been discussed umpteen times over, every month!

ParkingFun

Hey Coupon,

I did use the search and did read that thread, but I also found another which went on to say you should send them a response.