'This is not a PCN' ?

bad_bear

Ahhh, the fallacy of circular reasoning. We do not need to abide by POFA regulations because our notices do not comply with them.

I cannot, however, get my head around the fact that the failure to comply with the POFA NTD requirements means that they can be dismissed by the DVLA as not being a NTD, rather than being able to argue that the NTD is invalid because it doesn't meet the requirements. This is nonsensical.

I should at this point, point out that as neither the RK or driver I am enquiring/researching/acting on behalf of someone for whom all of these rules, regulations, proceedings, etc. are totally, unfathomably overwhelming. I believe that this type of circular logic would see many, many people in this situation and, since unable to comprehend would simply pay up. Meanwhile, even those who can fathom it out are simply left frustrated at the clear abuse of such reasoning.

Either way I will go over the NTK with a fine tooth comb and see if I can't find some errors or perhaps a little circular reasoning of my own to throw back at them.

I am unsure if the RK or driver would at this point want to do as I would and be prepared for court.

It is this application of circular reasoning in so many areas of the system, motoring and otherwise, and the loopholes created by provision of automated technology (ie treating a 'windscreen notice' and a bloke with a hand held camera as an ANPR simply because said windscreen notification fails to meet the standards of a NTD) which led me to move abroad!!

hoohoo

bad_bear wrote: »

It is this application of circular reasoning in so many areas of the system, motoring and otherwise, and the loopholes created by provision of automated technology (ie treating a 'windscreen notice' and a bloke with a hand held camera as an ANPR simply because said windscreen notification fails to meet the standards of a NTD) which led me to move abroad!!

That's quite extreme - moving abroad because of the UK parking system!

RobinofLoxley

Edna_Basher wrote: »

Schedule 4 of POFA defines "notice to driver" as meaning a notice given in accordance with paragraph 7 [of Schedule 4 of POFA].

In response to previous complaints about these myparkingcharge cards, the DVLA has stated that because they are not given in accordance with paragraph 7 (i.e. they do not comply with POFA) they cannot be considered to be notices to driver.

To quote the words of the great fisherjim, you couldn't make it up.

From the IPC Code of Practice :-

1. Applying for Keeper Details where Keeper Liability is Sought
1.1 The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 provides an ability for unpaid parking charges
that have been imposed on relevant land within England and Wales to be recovered from the keeper of a vehicle providing that certain pre-conditions are met. Paragraphs 1-5 of this Part apply where you purport to rely on these pre-conditions
1.2 If you intend to be able to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle you must request Keeper details in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

If the DVLA are stating that these windscreen tickets are not considered to be 'notices to drivers', then VCS are not operating in accordance with POFA as they should issue a NTD as required in non ANPR cases.
Therefore VCS should not be requesting keeper details from the DVLA and the DVLA should not be giving the keeper's details to them.

RobinofLoxley

bad_bear wrote: »

I cannot, however, get my head around the fact that the failure to comply with the POFA NTD requirements means that they can be dismissed by the DVLA as not being a NTD, rather than being able to argue that the NTD is invalid because it doesn't meet the requirements. This is nonsensical.

Yes it's bizarre. As I say in my post above, if these windscreen tickets are not NTD's (and true they do not meet the requirements of a NTD under POFA), then VCS cannot request the keepers details from the DVLA and if they do the DVLA should certainly not be giving them to VCS.

Do VCS say in the NTK that they will be seeking to recover the parking charge from the keeper of the vehicle? Either under Schedule 4 of POFA or not.

bad_bear

No, no mention of POFA anywhere.

They are stating that the driver is liable and that the notice can be passed to the driver, but inviting the keeper to pay since the name of the driver is not known and that they have the right to recover the from the keeper.

Well, I guess they follow POFA when it suits, lol!

bad_bear

hoohoo, I don't even drive, ha ha!!

bad_bear

But two can play at circular logic.........and hence -

The original notice adhered to the windscreen of the vehicle is dated that of the recorded contravention and also states a serial number pertaining to that contravention. It cannot be denied that, even though the 'ticket' adhered to the windscreen is stated not to be a Parking Charge Notice, the myparkingcharge website, to which the driver is directed, clearly states 'To access the recorded contravention details, please enter the following information from the Notification received', thus indeed stating that it is a notification that was adhered to the windscreen.

Furthermore, by entering the serial number and registration details on the afore mentioned website, the applicant, in this case the driver, is invited to pay a charge for a parking contravention. This then can only amount to the driver being issued a parking charge notice, by definition.

While the aforementioned received notice in itself does not conform to the regulations regarding a Notice to Driver, in accordance with POFA schedule 4 paragraph 7, the invitation to log on to the website (myparkingcharge), must mean that it is indeed a NTD, since it is the person in charge of the vehicle, therefore the driver and not necessarily the Registered Keeper, that is being authorised and invited to log on, in order to gain details of the contravention in question and pay the parking charge accordingly.

It is therefore undeniable that a notice to driver has been issued in this case, as it is the driver who is invited to log on to myparkingcharge and pay the invoice for the contravention stated. If that is to be countered then, by default, there has been no parking charge issued on the date recorded that the driver can be held accountable for or expected to pay since it would then have to be logically argued that no notice had been given. If there was no parking charge notice of a contravention issued then firstly the very invitation to log on to a website to view a recorded contravention would be illogical, and/or the view is being taken, in this instance, that the registered keeper is undoubtedly the driver, counter to IPC regulations that clearly state

'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 demonstrated by this arguement it is clear that such regulations are not being adhered to, nor the POFA being met.

Moreover, this windscreen notification, if viewed as being a PCN, which by the definition above it must be, fails to conform to either the POFA or IPC code of practice. Should it be that the argument is put forth that by not conforming or adhering to the POFA or IPC requirements that the NTD is in fact not a NTD based on the fact that it does not conform to those standards, then I would like to draw your attention to the 'PCN Ref No' (Parking Charge Reference Number) as detailed on the subsequently issued Notice to Keeper. The serial number that appears on the windscreen notice is the same as that detailed as the PCN on the NTK.

Thus, by definition, the serial number on the windscreen notice is in fact the PCN Ref No, which must therefore mean that they are one and the same and as a result the Ref No. and the serial number, being one and the same, must both refer to the parking charge. The result of which is that the windscreen notice must indeed be a reference to a parking charge. And, therefore as a notice must, by definition, be a parking charge notice.

Alternatively the view taken by yourselves that since the POFA Act is not being met by the windscreen notice and payment portal website in the case of this non-ANPR ticket, and thus the windscreen notice that was received is not a PCN, despite the evidence to the contrary as detailed above, and while it is understood that it is not mandatory for private parking firms to issue tickets using the POFA it is a requirement that the POFA act be followed in order to invoke keeper liability, then it can only logically follow that as the POFA Act of 2012 is not being followed then the act of not following the Act would result in keeper liability being unable to be sought. If you assert that you are not issuing this ticket as per the POFA then there is no grounds for recovering the parking charge from the keeper, since there is no keeper liability.


Now, I have no doubt this would be dismissed out of hand at the appeal stage, but it might make someone's brain hurt first

Coupon-mad

arguement

= should be

argument

Have fun with them.

RobinofLoxley

bad_bear wrote: »

But two can play at circular logic.........and hence -

The original notice adhered to the windscreen of the vehicle is dated that of the recorded contravention and also states a serial number pertaining to that contravention. It cannot be denied that, even though the 'ticket' adhered to the windscreen is stated not to be a Parking Charge Notice, the myparkingcharge website, to which the driver is directed, clearly states 'To access the recorded contravention details, please enter the following information from the Notification received', thus indeed stating that it is a notification that was adhered to the windscreen.

Furthermore, by entering the serial number and registration details on the afore mentioned website, the applicant, in this case the driver, is invited to pay a charge for a parking contravention. This then can only amount to the driver being issued a parking charge notice, by definition.

While the aforementioned received notice in itself does not conform to the regulations regarding a Notice to Driver, in accordance with POFA schedule 4 paragraph 7, the invitation to log on to the website (myparkingcharge), must mean that it is indeed a NTD, since it is the person in charge of the vehicle, therefore the driver and not necessarily the Registered Keeper, that is being authorised and invited to log on, in order to gain details of the contravention in question and pay the parking charge accordingly.

It is therefore undeniable that a notice to driver has been issued in this case, as it is the driver who is invited to log on to myparkingcharge and pay the invoice for the contravention stated. If that is to be countered then, by default, there has been no parking charge issued on the date recorded that the driver can be held accountable for or expected to pay since it would then have to be logically argued that no notice had been given. If there was no parking charge notice of a contravention issued then firstly the very invitation to log on to a website to view a recorded contravention would be illogical, and/or the view is being taken, in this instance, that the registered keeper is undoubtedly the driver, counter to IPC regulations that clearly state

'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 demonstrated by this arguement it is clear that such regulations are not being adhered to, nor the POFA being met.

Moreover, this windscreen notification, if viewed as being a PCN, which by the definition above it must be, fails to conform to either the POFA or IPC code of practice. Should it be that the argument is put forth that by not conforming or adhering to the POFA or IPC requirements that the NTD is in fact not a NTD based on the fact that it does not conform to those standards, then I would like to draw your attention to the 'PCN Ref No' (Parking Charge Reference Number) as detailed on the subsequently issued Notice to Keeper. The serial number that appears on the windscreen notice is the same as that detailed as the PCN on the NTK.

Thus, by definition, the serial number on the windscreen notice is in fact the PCN Ref No, which must therefore mean that they are one and the same and as a result the Ref No. and the serial number, being one and the same, must both refer to the parking charge. The result of which is that the windscreen notice must indeed be a reference to a parking charge. And, therefore as a notice must, by definition, be a parking charge notice.

Alternatively the view taken by yourselves that since the POFA Act is not being met by the windscreen notice and payment portal website in the case of this non-ANPR ticket, and thus the windscreen notice that was received is not a PCN, despite the evidence to the contrary as detailed above, and while it is understood that it is not mandatory for private parking firms to issue tickets using the POFA it is a requirement that the POFA act be followed in order to invoke keeper liability, then it can only logically follow that as the POFA Act of 2012 is not being followed then the act of not following the Act would result in keeper liability being unable to be sought. If you assert that you are not issuing this ticket as per the POFA then there is no grounds for recovering the parking charge from the keeper, since there is no keeper liability.


Now, I have no doubt this would be dismissed out of hand at the appeal stage, but it might make someone's brain hurt first

All completely logical in anybody's eyes except VCS who claim the windscreen ticket isn't a NTD/PCN and the DVLA who seem to agree with them.

The test would be in the courts and if a judge could be persuaded that these tickets that are attached to the windscreen can indeed be considered to be a 'parking charge notice' and as a consequence they fail to meet the requirements of POFA. I'm confident they would but as far as I know it hasn't been tested in a court claim.




They are certainly designed to look like official documents. As they contain a serial number which when accessing the website links you to details of a alleged contravention and asks you to pay a charge, it surely is a parking charge notice.

bad_bear

Personally I am up for testing it!! I can go round in these sorts of circles all day I honestly think a judge could be persuaded based on this reasoning, perhaps we shall find out, hey.

I have since learned that the car park in question has had rulings against their tickets for misleading signage (which is what the driver is also contesting) so perhaps they won't fancy court a second time. Yeah, yeah, wishful thinking, it's the optimist in me I know!

And thanks for the spell check. My brain hurts now, I am not certain I could spell check my own name at the mo, lol!!