PPS IAS Golden ticket advice plese

Notarobot_2

I have a faulty NtK (deemed delivery 19 days after short overstay, no proper 28-day warning of action against Keeper). Driver is and will remain unknown and cannot be inferred. Leaving aside mitigating circumstances which will only count with humans, and possible signage issues which are being checked, what is the current likely outcome at PPS, then IAS, then CC on the basis of unknown driver and invalid NtK? Could it be considered unprofessional of PPS to appeal given the clear invalidity of the NtK?

Separately, is there any current mileage in the cost argument for a short overstay in an empty car park with no retail connections?

Thanks to all forum stalwarts and for any replies.

Umkomaas

1. No chance with the PPC.
2. Next to no chance with the IAS.
3. Depends how well you argue ‘No Keeper Liability’ with the Judge, some have understood it, some haven’t (DJ lottery).
4. Depends who you are thinking of in considering them as ‘unprofessional’, but it won’t win you anything.
5. Cost argument - no longer washes thanks to PE v Beavis.

‘Golden Ticket’ relates primarily to PE NtKs (but not totally exclusively) and to POPLA appeals - POPLA are starting to understand this specific issue. The IAS only seem to understand what the PPC says - the motorist is routinely assumed to be lying.

System

Have you considered taking the matter up with the DVLA. If the PPC are claiming "keeper liability" and demonstrably they can't, the DVLA will usually investigate.

Notarobot_2

Thanks Umkomass. As I understand it my NtK (by ANPR) fails to meet the statutory requirements on two points which are provable matters of fact. By what arguments do any of the people I may meet seek to ignore this?.. The legislation was drafted to provide some protection in great detail so no part can be regarded as trivial. To me it seems unprofessional not to understand the relevant law and to pursue people wrongly, and the IPC code requires professional behaviour. And would not a judge note POPLA decisions?.

Thanks IamEmanresu That seems very interesting. Do you have precedents? If the DVLA could make clear that a faulty NtK ends the matter and instruct IAS to rule accordingly or cease to be an accepted ADR it could be generally helpful.

Umkomaas

By what arguments do any of the people I may meet seek to ignore this?

Some judges have. They are a law unto themselves in their own court - they have quite some discretion. If they get the law ‘wrong’ an appeal is possible, but you take a chance on some costs.

The legislation was drafted to provide some protection in great detail so no part can be regarded as trivial.

Of course. Some judges will run this for you, some will require you to argue it, others will have already made their minds up before you step into their courtroom - not necessarily in your favour.

To me it seems unprofessional not to understand the relevant law and to pursue people wrongly, and the IPC code requires professional behaviour.

Complain to the IPC and let us know how they fob you off.

And would not a judge note POPLA decisions?.

They might, or they might not. POPLA is hardly likely to be a precedent setting body in the eyes of the civil court. The precedents a civil court will acknowledge are those from an Appeals Court or the Supreme Court. Plus you’d need to deal with the PPCs argument that as an IPC AOS member, it would be the IAS appeals service that is relevant. Good luck with finding anything likely to be termed precedent setting in favour of the motorist from that lot!

You are dealing with PPS, but it would help if you gave us their full name are there are a few with the potential to use the same/similar acronym. We can give you a better idea of the likelihood of a court case.

http://www.bmpa.eu/company_guide_p_to_s.html

IamEmanresu is an experienced and prolific poster here and on PePiPoo, so follow his advice and complain to the DVLA (David Dunford) that the PPC is continuing to pursue the keeper despite serving a non-compliant NtK.

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

Coupon-mad

Are you saying the letter talks about keeper liability?

Or have you (a common assumption) wrongly assumed that PPCs have to follow the POFA?

Notarobot_2

Thanks again. Premier Parking Services. I have checked that link and the chances are very low of court action. I have not decided on strategy yet but asuming the PPC behave as expected I am more than happy to complain to DVLA (great to have a name). And more than happy to complain to IPC. To my simple (but trained scientific) mind anyone who promulgates Fake Law needs to be hunted down to the laat Tweet.

The kitchen sink approach advocated to wear everyone down and raise their costs does make sense but in this case I am inclining towards focussing on the stark core points.

I am also thinking of offering £15 without prejudice (which more than covers their estimated expenses to date by their own summary) to end the matter, not so much expecting it will (fine if it does, there was a breach which has cost them), but as reserve evidence when it comes to arguing for costs at Court (i.e. that there was a reasonable opportunity to settle that was rejected). You will probably tell me this is crazy.

Notarobot_2

Thank you, Coupon-Mad. I already know this is a famous name in these parts.

The letter is headed Notice to keeper. It invites me to pay or to give the name of the driver. The only other meaningful sentence in three pages is 'Failure to pay this charge may result in enforcement action which could include County Court proceedings and which may incur additional costs'. In other words, not POFA compliant. The PPC do not yet know the driver will not be revealed and have not been told the NtK is faulty, so I do not know their next step. But surely they can't pursue an unknown driver (there are several possible drivers so they cannot infer one), and how can they use a non-POFA-compliant NtK to pursue the keeper. I have seen several statements in the forum that they can't do either.

Umkomaas

You will probably tell me this is crazy.

‘Crazy’ is a bit strong! But you won’t get anywhere with it, in my opinion. Why waste your time and give them the idea that by offering some money you have some degree of concern and you might be a potential to offer more, and as it costs them little else to up the ante by tightening the thumbscrews by issuing more threatening letters, either themselves or by their lapdog debt collectors, why not hassle you a bit more.

Think about it.

Coupon-mad

Premier Parking Services.

Not Solutions?

I am also thinking of offering £15 without prejudice (which more than covers their estimated expenses to date by their own summary) to end the matter, not so much expecting it will (fine if it does, there was a breach which has cost them), but as reserve evidence when it comes to arguing for costs at Court (i.e. that there was a reasonable opportunity to settle that was rejected).

You will probably tell me this is crazy.

Bargepole told a poster that earlier today, in effect!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73386158#Comment_73386158

But surely they can't pursue an unknown driver (there are several possible drivers so they cannot infer one), and how can they use a non-POFA-compliant NtK to pursue the keeper. I have seen several statements in the forum that they can't do either.

They can't recover money from a keeper, using a non-POFA NTK. But that NTK doesn't say the registered keeper will be liable. There's nothing to stop a PPC issuing a non-POFA NTK. They can.

Notarobot_2

So sorry. Premier Parking Solutions. Good spot.

What legal authority would any non-POFA NTK they go on to issue have?