NCP penalty charge notice (new pound coin question)

Loadsofchildren123

The debate of POFA before it was enacted and when it was at draft stage, recorded in Hansard, specifically shows that an obligation on the RK to name the driver was lobbied for BUT REJECTED.
This assertion is plain wrong and quite outrageous. But not surprising. Definitely complain. And not just to the DVLA but to their trade body (BPA/IPC - not that they'll do anything but complain anyway).

Umkomaas

@OP. Have you complained yet? This could see the PPC cave in if they have the DVLA sniffing around.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

Following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 on the 1st October 2012 lobbying by the BPA the Bill introduces a duty on the keeper to identify the driver providing a serviceable address when enquiries are made by the landowner or his agent

Wrong! Complain to David Dunford of the DVLA that this is wilfully misleading information. PoFA never placed that 'duty on the keeper' (despite lobbying by the BPA).

The registered keeper of the vehicle, as per records held by DVLA, at the time of the contravention is liable for any Parking Charge Notice which is issued to that vehicle.

Wrong! Complain to David Dunford of the DVLA that this is wilfully misleading information. Only the case if the driver isn't identified and the PPC issues a fully compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) and as per the timescales of Schedule 4 of the Act.

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Danbev, you MUST complain to the DVLA and BPA about this misleading rubbish about:

(a) keepers having a 'duty' to name the driver. As LOC123 says, this 'duty' or obligation on a keeper to name the driver, was lobbied for by the suits at the BPA, but firmly rejected by MP Lynne Featherstone and others, during the reading of the POFA Bill in early 2012.

and

(b) that the keeper is liable, in this case where NCP have not even obtained keeper data let alone served a NTK at all, OF ANY DESCRIPTION.

Email David Dunford as shown by Umkomaas.

Meanwhile, win at POPLA. This one will be easy to win, show us your draft, starting with the template about 'no NTK being served = no keeper liability'.

All POPLA templates are linked in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread.

catfunt

Danbev, read post #9 in this thread and EDIT YOUR POST!!

Danbev

Hi guys, apologise if this is a bit rough but its my first time through this process. please could you check through my popla appeal and let me know if there's anything I need to add or change. Thanks

I am in receipt of a email, dated the xxx, from National Car Parks Limited (NCP). The email refers to my “recent correspondence” regarding Parking Charge Notice - xxx, how they have carefully considered the case and their decision to reject my appeal. The letter states that the grounds for rejection is because a parking attendant recorded that the vehicle was parked in a pay and display bay without displaying a valid pay and display ticket and that the ticket had expired. . The date of this alleged incident at King Street, Bolton has been given as xxx.. The email provides a list of options that I may choose to follow, including how to pay the Parking Charge Notice. The emal provides the above POPLA verification code and points out that if I choose not to pay the discounted rate of 50 pounds within 14 days the parking charge notice will increase to 100 pounds..

Firstly my email from NCP wrongly states:
“Following the introduction of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 on the 1st October 2012 lobbying by the BPA the Bill introduces a duty on the keeper to identify the driver providing a serviceable address when enquiries are made by the landowner or his agent”
And again:
“The registered keeper of the vehicle, as per records held by DVLA, at the time of the contravention is liable for any Parking Charge Notice which is issued to that vehicle”

I now face the situation where I have received threats to pay a sum of £100.00 to NCP and so have no option but to challenge their demand using via the POPLA adjudication service.

As such, I hereby raise this appeal based on the following points:

No notice to keeper served
Lack of standing / authority from landowner.
No evidence to show who was the driver
Signage.


1. I have not received written correspondence in the form of a ‘notice to keeper’ from NCP.


2. Lack of standing / authority from landowner

National Car Parks Ltd is a member of the British Parking Association and has not provided any evidence to show they have a title upon the land on which they operate nor a British Parking Association (BPA) compliant landowner contract that assigns the rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right, or otherwise.

Section 7of the British Parking Association Codes of Practice states that “If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent)” and dictate some of the required contract wording. NCP have no legal status to enforce this charge because there is no assignment of rights to pursue Parking Charge Notices in the courts in their own name, nor standing to form contracts with drivers themselves. They do not own this car park and merely appear to have a license to put signs up and employ the use of ANPR and are merely acting as agents. NCP has provided no evidence to show are entitled to pursue these charges in their own right.

If NCP disagree they are to provide a full copy of the contemporaneous, signed & dated (unredacted) contract with the landowner. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged breach of Terms and Conditions in this car park. In order to refute this it will not be sufficient for the Operator merely to supply a site agreement or witness statement, as these do not show sufficient detail (such as the restrictions, charges and revenue sharing arrangements agreed with a landowner) and may well be signed by a non-landholder such as another agent. In order to comply with Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner - not merely an 'agreement' with a non-landholder managing agent - otherwise there is no authority.


3. No evidence to show who was the driver.

NCP have not provided any evidence to show who was the driver. A disclosure and naming of a driver within an appeal lodged by a third party who was neither the driver, registered keeper or hirer cannot be held to be strict evidence. In order to pursue a driver for an unpaid charge, there must either be an admittance by the driver or some other form of independent evidence to substantiate the claim. Of course, if POFA 2012 is held not to be in force, the naming of the driver , either by admission or otherwise, is irrelevant.

If NCP disagree they are to provide the evidence to the contrary.

4. Signage.

NCP is registered as an Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) member with the British Parking Association (BPA). In the letter from NCP they say that all signage is compliant with all industry standards and to the British Parking Association’s Code of Practice. NCP have not provided any evidence of the signage that was in place on the date of the alleged breach or evidence to support their claim of compliance and so I can only say that signage was not clear, visible and compliant.

If NCP disagree they are to provide the evidence to the contrary.

On the basis of my appeal points and the lack of evidence to support the claim being made by NCP I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge is dismissed accordingly.

Umkomaas

Have you complained to David Dunford yet? I did ask over a week ago, but no response from you. Regulars will be reluctant to respond to you if you won't reciprocate.

Geoff1963

Have you complained to David Dunford yet?

If the parking company is lying about the law, in order to make a gain for themselves, and a loss to others - does that constitute fraud ?
Would MP Lynne Featherstone also be interested to know ?

Umkomaas

Geoff1963 wrote: »

If the parking company is lying about the law, in order to make a gain for themselves, and a loss to others - does that constitute fraud ?
Would MP Lynne Featherstone also be interested to know ?

It certainly constitutes something 'not right' hence the advice to write to D Dunford. He has the capacity to put a rocket up their rear ends.

But if good advice is to be ignored ........... why bother?

Geoff1963

But if good advice is to be ignored ........... why bother?

Perhaps the OP doesn't have access to a computer.

The_Deep

As they are attempting to obntain monies from you by misrepresenting the law, complain in writing to your local Trading Standards Officer. Do not contact CAB who are useless.