Notice to Keeper issued after 25 days

KingKong10

My wife received a Notice to Keeper from Direct Solutions for Parking Ltd (DSP) (registered with the IPC) dated 21/09/17 relating to Sandhills Car Park in Instow on the 31/08/17.

Having looked through the advice and templates on this forum have drafted the below appeal and would welcome any advice on this from more experienced posters - anything missing / incorrect or if a different approach might be better. Particularly as I'm not sure DSP are alleging keeper liability.

Many Thanks,


"You issued a parking notice on 21/09/2017 addressed to myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle and no assumptions can be drawn. Your demand for payment is declined for the following reasons.

1. There is no keeper liability.
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, 9. (5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. Also in the IPC Code of Practice Part C, 5.1 (m)

Date of parking 31/08/2017, therefore the Parking Charge Notice would need to have been received no later than the 14/09/2017. The parking charge notice was only issued on the 21/09/2017 and deemed given on the 25/09/2017, 11 days after the deadline and therefore as the keeper of the vehicle, I am not liable.

2. I understand that a Parking Charge Notice must also include the period of parking which is absent from the notice you have provided and therefore invalid. The only information specified is a date and time with no period specified.

3. If this appeal is rejected, I will only appeal further if you offer an alternative dispute resolution service. The 'IAS' offered by IPC firms will not be used, for well-documented reasons.
4. If this appeal is rejected please provide the following documentation:
a. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
b. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
c. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
d. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
e. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

As you have obtained the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (as you have not fully complied with the IPC Code of Practice) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Redx

seems ok as long as the original invoice went to the KEEPER and the KEEPER appeals it

do not infer who was driving , do not tell them

as they have failed POFA2012, if it goes to court its one of many defence points to be raised

they will likely refuse the appeal , dont bother with the IAS

they have 6 years to issue an LBC or an MCOL

KingKong10

Thanks. Much appreciated

KingKong10

The initial appeal was rejected and DSFP have offered to reduce the amount payable down to £30 if paid within 7 days of the letter or to appeal to IAS within 21 days. The appeal rejection later makes no mention of keeper liability (or lack of) but just says you have to pay.


All the advice seems to be to not bother appealing to the IAS even on grounds of no keeper liability but wanted to confirm that this is still the case?


If not appealing to IAS is it worth writing a further letter to DSFP stating that we won't be paying, that any further attempt to contact us will be considered harassment and the passing of personnel details to 3rd parties will be considered a breach of the DPA and appropriate complaints will be made as such ie. reiterate the last few para of the original appeal. Or would that just be wasted effort and we should just ignore future correspondence (unless court papers turn up)?


Also, would anyone know if they take my wife to court which court it would be? DSFP appear to be based in Hove.

KeithP

KingKong10 wrote: »

Also, would anyone know if they take my wife to court which court it would be? DSFP appear to be based in Hove.

It would be your wife's local court.

Marktheshark

IAS are basically Gladstones the incompetent solicitors, they have an automated response system that churns out one of 7 random rejection letters.
They then offer to sue the appellant using the details you supplied at the appeal.

So yes they are a waste of time.

I would issue the parking company a deadlock notice that they have no keeper liability and have 28 days to issue legal proceedings via the county court or accept the conditional offer to drop hands.
By not replying in 28 days they service the contract and the matter will be closed.

See how they like it up them

Devonlady

We have an action group to fight this car parking company
Please join on Facebook
"Sandhills action group"

Coupon-mad

Good for you. Joining together and warning people and informing them how to appeal (link to here) is a powerful fightback.

Do make sure no keepers give away driver details, if this PPC is issuing late NTKs every time then none of you can be held liable unless any numpty victims blab about the driver.