postal PCN received after 14 days

Steven100

I have now received a "Formal Demand" from UK CPM.
It tells me Payment for the PCN is now overdue.

It states the DRIVER became liable for the charge and they obtained my details from the DLVA as registered keeper of the vehicle.

It also states the parking incident occurred on the 1st April and their PCN was issued on 19th April.

As I understand it, this is clearly outside the 14 days that PoFA allows to send a PCN to the Keeper in order to hold the keeper liable for the charge.
I further believe I am under no obligation to provide details of the Driver at the time of the alleged unauthorised parking.

Should I write to them again repeating that which I have already stated: The PCN is out side 14 days and I will not be paying the charge, nor providing details of the driver?

Or should I just file it, and wait for these bunch of jesters to try their luck in the county court?

Thanks in anticipation

Redx

you are correct, so yes you could do that , then IGNORE anything except for an LBC or an MCOL

bear in mind they will try to twist any "facts" to make themselves look good for the claim , like they did above

but as long as you are correct, stick with it for the long haul

Steven100

Here is my reply:

Dear Sirs,
I am in receipt of your ‘Formal Demand’ dated xxth June 2017, requesting payment against a parking charge notice referenced xxxxxx and issued xxth April 2017 for an incident of alleged unauthorised parking on xst April 2017.

As previously communicated in my letter dated xxth April, my position in this matter is that of Registered Keeper of the vehicle. My position in this matter is not that of Driver.
My previous letter noted that UK CPM failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, UK CPM is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.
It is therefore incumbent upon UK CPM to pursue the driver of the vehicle for payment of its invoice and immediately cease and desist the unreasonable harassment of the Registered Keeper.
As communicated in my letter of xxth April, I will not be paying the invoice of behalf of the driver and I am under no legal obligation to provide UK CPM with details of the driver.

Yours Sincerely,


Any thoughts before I stick this in the post this afternoon?

Umkomaas

Seems fine. Don't be for one second surprised if they ignore everything you've said, then plough on regardless. At least you've made your position clear, should it ever get to court.

Steven100

Thank you.
Yes, I have rather gathered everything I get from them has already been sent verbatim to 5,000 other people already.

I do rather suspect they only open the letters to check if there is a payment is inside, and immediately file them if not!

From what I have found on here, UK CPM do move to court procedings, so I suspect I will be testing this in court in due course.

Thanks & Regards.

Umkomaas

People have previously sent them letters with envelopes headed 'Check enclosed'. I suspect it gets them excited.:rotfl:

Steven100

I have just received a response to my letter (see above) from the PPC.

They say they will continue to pursue the PCN under the legal presumption that I was the driver at the time of the contravention, unless they receive information to the contrary.
They then site the case of Elliot v Loake 1983, which held that the registered keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption.
They then conclude that they reserve the right to issue county court proceedings against the driver if the parking charge remains unpaid.


Should I write to them again pointing out;
a) Elliot v Loake was a Criminal case and not a civil matter regarding a disputed invoice for parking.

b) In the above case, the registered keeper had stated that nobody else had access to his car and that he had the only set of keys in his possession that night. Whilst I am asserting that I have given permission to drive my car to numerous people and indeed have more than one named driver on my insurance.

c) There was also Forensic evidence that the appellant had lied during his defence.

Would I also be correct in advising them that as they are not relying upon the POFA 21012, they should immediately destroy and cease to use all and any of my personal data, as it is now clear they had not obtained my details legitimately and any further use of my personal data may result in me taking proceedings against them for breach of the Data Protection Act.

Alternatively, should I just not bother and save the postage stamp until the court papers appear?

Umkomaas

They say they will continue to pursue the PCN under the legal presumption that I was the driver

I suspect it doesn't say that? 'Reasonable' is the usual wording.

You can fire off a demolition of EvL and CPSvAJH. Here's some very recent ammunition from The Parking Prankster:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/ms-devenster-macklow-loses-another.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/bw-legal-try-elliott-v-loake-and-cps-v.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-lose-in-cardiff-judge-explains.html

All in the space of the past 2 weeks.

Rebutting the EvL and CPSvAJH at this early stage will make them look hideously silly if, by the time they get around to issuing you with any proceedings, they continue to use those two cases against you. I'm sure most judges would be mightily jissed off if they waste his/her court's time with this proven drivel.

Steven100

Thank you.
The exact wording in the letter is:

"I am writing to inform you that we will continue to pursue this PCN under a legal presumption that you were the driver of the vehicle..."

beamerguy

Steven100 wrote: »

Thank you.
The exact wording in the letter is:

"I am writing to inform you that we will continue to pursue this PCN under a legal presumption that you were the driver of the vehicle..."

UK CPM don't know who the driver is and the only so called
"legal presumption" is in their minds

A judge would probably laugh at this one.
If they can prove in court who the driver is, good luck to them
PROOF MEANS PROOF

Don't these numpties understand that Elliott v Loake is a non starter now and for that they can thank BWLegal who started the Elliott v Loake rubbish and to whom
BWLegal are suffering for even going down that route