UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd - Need some advice

dat_geezer

Umkomaas wrote: »

If they're corresponding with the RK, then he/she can deal with this with some protection afforded by the Protection of Freedoms Act. There's nothing to stop you doing all the work, but everything should go out in the name of the RK.

Alternatively, to take the RK out of the loop, he/she would have to formally write to the PPC and provide them with the name and address for service of the driver. This could reset the clock if the PPC swallow this and would open the way for the driver to appeal to UKPPO, but there would be no PoFA protection. But even the driver appealing would receive the same guaranteed rejection, and in my view opens them up for a more likely court pursuit. But as it was a windscreen ticket, the PPC might argue the driver has had their chance and continue to pursue the RK.

There's no 'hybrid' position, as you (and the RK?) currently appear to think, through which this can be dealt with.

Everything is in RK name and I'm just dealing with it all.


I appreciate your response and I apologise if this is going round in cryptic circles.

Quentin wrote: »

You haven't sorted out your OP!


Remove references to who parked

Sorry think I've sorted it now by deleting the parking part?

Redx

dat_geezer wrote: »

I'm slightly confused too, I've been advised I can't say who did what and I've tried to PM you to discuss but you're not accepting PMs, probably for this reason lol...but basically the RK wasn't driving? If I'm allowed to say that.


Also they've received the first letter Reminder notice and then a further letter from DRP

yes you can say that the RK was not the driver

you can use 2 terms when describing the "story" , which are

THE DRIVER

THE KEEPER

how hard can it be ?

and although the original story is missing , at least it does not use the "banned words" of "ME , MYSELF and I" , so not blabbing at last !

as for PM,s , I too keep mine locked for the same reasons as others on here like umkomaas

people do not have the god given right to send anyone unsolicited messages nor do they have the right to pester anyone who replies to them on the forum

for me its a respect for privacy issue and we are not here at the beck and call of somebody who isnt paying us any wages lol

my twopennorth , no malice intended , just tell it the way it is

and UKPPO do not subscribe to the BPA POPLA option , so you need to research these things a lot more now that there are two courses of action from 2 different trade bodies

you can however , IGNORE drp , dont give them the time of day !!

but once a ticket was issued , there was almost ZERO chance of getting it cancelled , and the driver may have jumped the gun by trying to appeal instead of waiting for an NTK to arrive in the post (to the keeper) - not that this would have changed the outcome

dat_geezer

Hi everyone,

After ignoring letters from DRP and Zenith, I now have my first letter from Gladstones.

This is just another warning to advise I have 14 days before they may pursue court action, but as the reasons above, this situation is one that seems to be getting more worrying after each letter, which I believe is what they're aiming for.

My question is, do I ignore and wait for an LBC or try to communicate and name the driver to 'reset'? not sure if I have a strong case if I'm being honest, but I am willing to fight as far as I can as go as I do believe the charges are unacceptable.

Thanks

Umkomaas

My question is, do I ignore and wait for an LBC or try to communicate and name the driver to 'reset'? not sure if I have a strong case if I'm being honest, but I am willing to fight as far as I can as go as I do believe the charges are unacceptable.

I’m still unclear as to exactly what capacity you are acting in here. Are you the RK? A simple Yes or No would suffice.

What exactly do you hope to achieve by ‘naming the driver’?

Was this a Newcastle Airport parking case?

To whom does the Gladstones letter tell you to pay?

Does the reference number on the letter commence with a 1xxx, 3xxx or 4xxx?

dat_geezer

Umkomaas wrote: »

I’m still unclear as to exactly what capacity you are acting in here. Are you the RK? A simple Yes or No would suffice.

What exactly do you hope to achieve by ‘naming the driver’?

Was this a Newcastle Airport parking case?

To whom does the Gladstones letter tell you to pay?

Does the reference number on the letter commence with a 1xxx, 3xxx or 4xxx?

Hey thanks for reply - I am not RK but RK doesn't want much to do with this as it not their fault.

I've heard naming the driver "resets" things, but this is from my limited reading and knowledge of the situation.

This was a parking notice issued within the Manchester city centre area.

Gladstones tells me to pay DRP who sent chase letters, which were ignored. Zenith also sent letters but also ignored, then Gladstones appeared

The reference starts with 3XXXX - Thanks

Umkomaas

The reference starts with 3XXXX

That’s a DRP initiated letter. It can be ignored.

I am not RK but RK doesn't want much to do with this as it not their fault.

Was the initial Notice to Keeper addressed to the RK or you?

To whom is correspondence now addressed?

dat_geezer

All correspondence is going through the RK as driver was never named/address were not changed over etc.

I'm very happy to ignore, but would changing anything such as naming the driver, or changing correspondence affect anthing at this stage? The RK gets annoyed everytime they open the letters from DRP/Zenith/Gladstones and I just tell them to ignore.

Appreciate all the wording within the letter is "they have the option to take cout action" or throwing in the example of Beavis v Parking eye 2015 is in there to try to intimidate.

Thanks

Umkomaas

Naming the driver will divert letters to him/her, but the very powerful and vital protection of the Protection of Freedoms Act, provided to the registered keeper is completely lost.

As this is an IPC operator, the driver would have absolutely no prospect of appealing this successfully and would likely make him/her even more vulnerable to a court claim.

dat_geezer

Umkomaas wrote: »

Naming the driver will divert letters to him/her, but the very powerful and vital protection of the Protection of Freedoms Act, provided to the registered keeper is completely lost.

As this is an IPC operator, the driver would have absolutely no prospect of appealing this successfully and would likely make him/her even more vulnerable to a court claim.

So for the time being just ignore?

The BMPA suggests that cases going to court are slim (I think 250 out of something like 9000), however, I have a sneaky feeling I may be one of those soon. I obviously don't want to settle in any way, shape or form, but also, not sure if the RK will be happy defending something they have not been involved with.

I am aware of the Freedoms act as I've heard that batting around so did some reading on it. Should I name the driver and this goes to court, how likely of a case would I have?

Thanks

Umkomaas

Should I name the driver and this goes to court, how likely of a case would I have?

You wouldn’t have any ‘case’, the driver would!

Who knows what sort of case he or she would have, we’ve seen ‘guaranteed cert’ cases lost and ‘lost causes’ won. It’s a lottery. But of the claims we’ve worked with the OP on developing a defence there has only been one loss.

I’m afraid you’re nibbling around the edges of this (example below)

I am aware of the Freedoms act as I've heard that batting around so did some reading on it

If you really had got to grips with this, I’m not sure why you’re asking about naming the driver.

Just so you know, once a claim is instigated (receipt of N1 form from the CCBC in Northampton) any opportunity to transfer liability to the driver is lost - although I expect you already know this from reading the ‘Freedoms act’