Please (please!) advise

PCNRECIPIENT

To the esteemed panel here,

I'm really in some distress having receiving a PCN, twice on the same das. I've spent the weekend reading threads about PCNs but still cannot ascertain which action is best. I'm sorry if now ask you questions which have you've answered to others.

Is this is a genuine-sounding PCN? Factors suggesting it is:
i) The car park was visited on the day in question ii) The car ID'd is the keeper's car iii) It is POSSIBLE there was the alleged overstay (went beyond the 'free parking period).

OR -- is this not a genuine/reputable/creditable PCN? In other words, is the attached a 'try-on' and should the keeper ignore/challenge it and/or complain to the retailer (MORRISONS supermarket)? Factors suggesting something is indeed amiss:

i) The amount is not insignificant (£145), presumably because interest has accrued since July, and because they claim to have enlisted a tracing service (due to the vehicle's registered address changing), which presumably cost them money which they must want reimbursement for.

ii) This is the vey first the keeper has heard about it (no ticket at the time in July, but notification now -- October) iiii) There is no evidence and the statement 'agreed to by the driver' is untrue.

If it is genuine PCN and looks authentic/creditable, is the template "for IPC members" (posted on the 'NEWBIES' thread and commencing with the text "I am the registered keeper...") the most suitable template in this situation to use?


Or would you recommend just paying it? It's been suggested to enlist an appeal management firm, the likes of which charge a small-ish flat fee, (albeit without guarantee of overturning)? Could CoupounMad or another wise owl please advise on what the driver should do?

With many many thanks in advance,
PCNRECIPIENT

Redx

who is the PPC in question ?

ALWAYS complain to Morrissons head office, usually by email, or their CEO by email, and insist on a cancellation (that goes without saying)

you cannot upload files here, there is no facility to do so as its not a hosting site

try tinypic and then add a dead URL to your reply

and edit your last post to remove any hint of who was driving

use THE DRIVER and THE KEEPER (for all intents and purposes, these are two different entities)

ps:- how long is the alleged "overstay" ???

and when was the alleged date of contravention ???

PCNRECIPIENT

Thanks so much Redx; need to eat -- then Ill come back ASAP. really helpful of you, thx again

PCNRECIPIENT

Hi again Redx,
What an awful business this is.

The PPC in question is Euro Car Parks Ltd.

In line with your helpful advice, the keeper has emailed Morrisons HQ to complain.

I will look at some edits as you suggest -- thanks and, tomorrow if you're about (?) try to make an upload. Would that help in terms of the nature of your advice you could give?

Lastly, the alleged "overstay" is not specified in the demand. Would a £150 penalty be excessive? The date of the alleged overstay was July 6th 2017. The first notification the keeper had of it was Sat just gone; Oct 6th 2017.

Can you kindly shed any more light?

KeithP

Surely it was the keeper that emailed Morrisons?

It really is important to keep the the roles of KEEPER and DRIVER distinct.

Similarly, a later sentence should start:

The first notification the keeper had...

Please edit your post accordingly.

This sort of thing is important as PPCs trawl internet forums looking for people to trip themselves up.

Redx

I would have thought that the KEEPER emailed Morrissons

and it was the KEEPER that received the MCOL, unless somebody was daft enough to blab about who was driving ?

if the driver has not been named, stay as KEEPER in this matter - ALWAYS

the amount in your statement is not "huge" , a typical loss could be around £175 including fees , this applies to anybody that loses in court, so £175 is the "standard" loss

if you win , you can claim up to about £95 in fees etc

ECP should have sent an NTK before day 15 in order to comply with POFA2012 (assuming no windscreen ticket was left for the driver)

this has nothing at all to do with the driver, the keeper is the defendant

it may seem pedantic, but this is a legal matter where words count

this court claim should have followed the new rules on MCOL protocols that came in a week ago , so if you have no Particulars Of Claim it appears they have failed the new protocols,

PCNRECIPIENT

Thanks Keith; sorry for the slips.As to the outlined situation, what does it sound like to you? Do you favour these appeal firms? The level of stress it's causing is significant.

Redx

personally I cannot recommend these "firms" , its a do it yourself job here, all the regulars (including coupon-mad) will tell you , as KEEPER, to defend it , as KEEPER

FORGET ALL ABOUT WHO WAS DRIVING , YOU ARE DEFENDING AS KEEPER

PCNRECIPIENT

Redx, understood on language precision. Thanks. Do my utmost.
It is poss that ECP sent the NTK before day 15 to the keeper's old address.
But if the keeper did not receive the NTK (the keeper may have moved or been out the country), then are they technically in breach of the rule you cite? And if there is a breach, could the PCN be quashed?

KeithP

Similarly, the misuse of the word driver still exists in your opening post.

The word driver appears twelve times in that post.
Seven of those should be keeper.

The first occurrence of the word registered should be removed from that post too.

Redx

yes they could have , but it should be in their MCOL details under the new protocols , detailing the claim

and all they have to do is prove they sent one to the RK address as received from the DVLA database

it was the KEEPERS job to update those details and the keeper could be fined up to £1000 for not doing so (so I hope this has now been done)

only a judge can "quash" this, on legal arguments only , so dont think there is an easy get out