'This is not a PCN' ?

pysspd

Just wondering if the OP got anywhere with this case? One of these was placed on my car early last week. It seems like a crude non-electronic phishing attempt to me and have treated it as such. Not had a notice to keeper yet. I emailed trading standards and will post back any response from them. Could this be seen as seen as misrepresentation or even fraud? It would be useful to know what happened though so others can be better prepared. Thanks.

Umkomaas

Last Activity: 15-11-2017 4:12 PM

Over 5 months since he/she looked back in on this forum. We have no idea of outcome unless the OP updates the thread.

Try sending a PM to the OP - they should then get an email telling them you are trying to make contact.

There have been more recent cases like this one. Do a forum search to find the threads, then keep an eye on those as they progress.

adambuzz14

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

i'm more than happy to include this in my witness statement and let everybody know what the judge makes of it

Coupon-mad

Yes, and at least one Judge has agreed with our view. Clearly a Notice left on the windscreen for the driver which allows them to pay or appeal, is a Notice to Driver.

You can also look at the DFT Guidance on Schedule 4 from 2012 when the Act was passed. Ignore anything talking about a charge having to be a pre-estimate of loss as that has changed by the Beavis case, but in that guidance it says in the flowchart, that postal PCNs under para 9 of the POFA, are for circumstances where images are taken REMOTELY by ANPR or CCTV...i.e. (putting two and two together) where there was no opportunity to leave a windscreen document.