Incomplete location on parking ticket

barney2005

A ticket was received for parking outside a local furniture store late on a Sunday evening. The ticket and subsequent notice to keeper (non-compliant) gave the location as "private parking area at XXX furniture", with no street or town mentioned. As it turns out, the photograph on the NTK shows the car parked outside a different furniture store, several streets away! .... you pay peanuts ...

As I am the registered keeper, I am getting the usual Debt Recovery Plus letters. I have told the ppc and DRP by email that I deny liability because of non-compliance with POFA, which they ignored, so I am now ignoring their letters and waiting for them to issue a letter before action, if they do. I forgot to appeal in time, so popla wasn't an option.

I would be grateful for advice on (a) does the incomplete location make the ticket invalid, and (b) am I right to ignore their letters and wait for any further action?

pogofish

Post Four of the Newbies Sticky covers DRP in its entirety - Please read it and the rest of the thread to inform yourself properly before digging yourself a deeper hole.

PPC's don't do fact or invalidation and you need to couch any communication very carefully and you never but never contact a debt collector!

barney2005

Can you please clarify how I have dug myself into a hole?

The only information that I gave was to say that I was denying the claim and was not liable as the NTK did not comply with POFA. I read advice elsewhere that I should tell DRP this and advise them to go back to the ppc, which I did upon receipt of their first letter. I have not contacted DRP since.

I did not mention the accuracy of the location or the photograph. I am keeping that information for presentation to the court, should the need arise. Am I right in thinking that these inaccuracies make the whole claim invalid should the ppc try to take it to court?

fisherjim

barney2005 wrote: »

Can you please clarify how I have dug myself into a hole?

The only information that I gave was to say that I was denying the claim and was not liable as the NTK did not comply with POFA. I read advice elsewhere that I should tell DRP this and advise them to go back to the ppc, which I did upon receipt of their first letter. I have not contacted DRP since.

I did not mention the accuracy of the location or the photograph. I am keeping that information for presentation to the court, should the need arise. Am I right in thinking that these inaccuracies make the whole claim invalid should the ppc try to take it to court?

You need to be very careful what you say, and going away from the advice on here can drop you in it, for example you have given away far too much in the first three words of you opening post (and dropped someone in it) on an open forum frequently trawled by the scumbag PPC's!!

Telling Debt Recovery Plus anything is worthless they won't take any notice, know nothing about the site, or the details of the claim.

They don't want to give this back to the PPC or they will loose their rake off and any communication with them will be seen as a weakness.

At the end of the day should it come to it only a judge can make a decision about the validity of the location, the PPC will dodge it with waffle and bluff.

The_Deep

Can you please clarify how I have dug myself into a hole?

I was wondering that too. It seems to be that the only holes which have been dug here have been by the PPC.

paulstevens64

I think that the opening sentence from the OP gives a strong clue as to the identity of the driver!!!

That could be the black hole?

barney2005

Thanks for all your replies.

Looks like I'll just wait for them to try an LBA. As their NTK was non-compliant, that should be a non-starter anyway.

Umkomaas

barney2005 wrote: »

Thanks for all your replies.

Looks like I'll just wait for them to try an LBA. As their NTK was non-compliant, that should be a non-starter anyway.

Not quite so straightforward, it should be, but there have been judges who have decided to ignore any PoFA non-compliance.

You haven't told us who the PPC is. Knowing that, we could give you an indication of how litigious (or not) they are.

paulstevens64

Hi Barney, the whole point of a non compliant NTK is that the PPC cannot invoke POFA. E.G. they cannot transfer liability from the driver (who they do not know the identity of) to the Keeper - who they do know from the DVLA.


In your case, where you have a non compliant NTK, you are in a good position. BUT!!!!! If you look at your initial post, you state who was driving in the first 5 words.

If the PPC were looking at this forum they could take a screen shot, then begin proceedings against the actual driver. So your non compliant NTK becomes useless.

So, please, Edit your first post quickly, to remove any hint/implication of who was driving your car on the date of the parking infringement.

barney2005

Thanks again for your advice everyone.

I have changed the original post. Is it okay now? If they had taken a screenshot before I changed it, there is more than one person it could have applied to, so hopefully that would make a difference.

The ppc is Corporate Services and the "offence" took place last year. Any thoughts?

Johno100

barney2005 wrote: »

Thanks again for your advice everyone.

I have changed the original post. Is it okay now?

The ppc is Corporate Services and the "offence" took place last year. Any thoughts?

You mean Corporate Services (Hereford) Limited t/as Corporate Services (Parking Management) a BPA member? Shame you didn't come here when you first got the ticket as a well written POPLA appeal might well nipped this in the bud.

The good news is that the PPC you are dealing with are not litigious and have seemingly as of yet never taken a case to court.

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Corporate_Services_Hereford.html