Invalid NtK Shall I appeal to IAS?

kensiko

Hi all

Hopefully a quick one.

I know usually you shouldn't bother appealing to IAS but what if your case is 100% certain and the main point just ignored by the PPC?

The NtK received is invalid because it was not posted with 14 days of the parking 'event' -
POFA 2012 9(5).

This was pointed out in the initial letter to the PPC (Excel) but their standard copy and paste reply didn't mention the point at all.

I realise now the debt letters will start pouring in and can be ignored and the case would not go to court as it is 100% winnable but just to avoid the harassment would the IAS understand this and cancel the ticket?

Thanks all

KeithP

kensiko wrote: »

The NtK received is invalid because it was not posted with 14 days of the parking 'event' -
POFA 2012 9(5).

The NtK is still as 'valid' as it has ever been.
It is just that liability cannot be transferred to the keeper if it is not POFA compliant.

The risk of appealing to IAS is that you inadvertently give away the identity of the driver.
I hope your first appeal didn't do that.

IAS will not uphold your appeal on that ground.

kensiko

Thanks for the response.

The driver has not and will not be identified. This was stated in the PPC appeal.

I had assumed if POFA has not been followed correctly then the NtK was invalid but looking at the IPC code of practice it states:
"You must not imply that the registered keeper can be held responsible for the parking
charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act unless the relevant time limits within the
Act have been met."

So is this this now just a stalemate? The PPC cannot hold the RK responsible because POFA was not met due to the time limits not being met. The RK will not divulge the drivers details.

Have I understood that correctly so the RK has to now deal with the debt letter harassment?

Umkomaas

If you know your onions on PoFA in the context of ‘Keeper Liability’ and you can get chapter and verse adequately articulated, and want to risk an appeal to IAS, it will be interesting to see how they now handle it - haven’t seen a ‘No Keeper Liability’ case from them for a while now. I think they used to trot out the now discredited (but won’t necessarily stop them!) Elliott v Loake.

Just to double check your dates, could you please:

* confirm the date of the parking event
* confirm the date of issue shown on the NtK
* confirm the date of receipt by you

kensiko

The dates exactly as shown on the NtK in their own words:

"Issue Date (posted): 28/09/2017
Contravention Date: 09/09/2017"

The NtK was received on 02/10/2017 but I would have thought insignificant seeing as though the PPC helpfully use the word 'posted' next to their issue date.

waamo

There is a train of thought that suggests the IAS makes such bizarre findings that they won't want to see them displayed in court.

You can bet your life you won't win an appeal but the reasons you lose may be embarrassingly illogical and the ppc may well not want a judge seeing them.

Umkomaas

Thanks for reply.

Does the NtK state that, in the absence of the driver’s identity, they will hold the keeper liable?

If that is the case then the DVLA should be involved. But I think the strategy should be to appeal to the IAS first, then in the likely event they screw it up and dismiss the appeal, then that’s the time to involve David Dunford of the DVLA.

It’s almost a default position of ours to recommend not appealing to the IAS, but I think this is different. Would be good to get a few more inputs from regulars on an IAS appeal (and maybe just a single point appeal, so as not to give them any other point to dismiss the case on) and also whether the strategy described by me above is one they’d think is the best way to play this.

kensiko

Thanks very much for all advice.

The section "If, after the period of 28 days...." is on the NtK.
A scan for the full wording is at https://imgsafe.org/image/10073a1fef

I shall post the brief appeal next so it can be read here.
The RK has 21 days to make the decision to appeal to IAS so no rush as yet.

Thanks again.

kensiko

Possible IAS first draft.

On 9th September 2017 I was the registered keeper of a <Make and Model> registration <Reg No>.
I will not name the driver as it is not legally required of me as the registered keeper of the vehicle.

The Notice to Keeper received on 2nd October 2017 does not comply with either:
POFA 2012 Act Schedule 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted specifically 9(5)
The IPC Code of Practice https://theipc.info/uploads/-imXk-gEBVk2UV_c_WWpjuthUeH2hwEwihq7Np6Q030/Code%20of%20Practice%20v6%20Amended%2014th%20June%202017.pdf specifically Part C 5.1 (m)

Both state a Notice to Keeper must be received with 14 days beginning with the day after parking.

The Notice to Keeper received specifies "Issue Date (posted): 28/09/2017". This is directly quoted from the Notice to Keeper. As the same Notice to Keeper states "Contravention Date: 09/09/2017" both the code of practice and POFA 2014 have not been fulfilled.

The IPC code of practice Part C 1.3 states:
"You must not imply that the registered keeper can be held responsible for the parking charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act unless the relevant time limits within the Act have been met."

As the registered keeper of this vehicle on the contravention date I cannot be held responsible for this parking charge even though your Notice to Keeper states "we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver".

The_Deep

I have always believed that one should appeal to the IAS. An illogical refusal can be ridiculed in court.

bergkamp

The appeal should be consistently ' Registered Keeper' ,not mixed with ' keeper '.

Schedule 4 is clear that it is keeper liability and not registered keeper liability.

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

I can't recall it being tested at any level(?) But imo is an extra layer of protection for the RK.