PPS IAS Golden ticket advice plese

Coupon-mad

It's legal as a vehicle to recover money from the driver.

Don't tell them who was driving and they are stuffed. But the NTK is not illegal or void.

It's merely a driver-only liability document...perfectly OK for them to send it to a keeper and 'enquire' who was driving.

Perfectly OK for you not to tell them!

Notarobot_2

To be clear:

they can't chase a driver they do not know: they cannot legally obtain the driver's name; they cannot pursue a keeper on the basis of a non-POFA NtK All they can do is ask for the driver's name until
they get bored. Anything else is unprofessional and arguably illegal. The only way they win is with a dumb CC judge, which would lead to this forum crowd-funding an Appeal to someone who can read!

Is this a fair summary?

The moving emojis below this box are fascinating my cat.

Umkomaas

arguably illegal

Unlawful maybe. Illegal .... ? Check definitions. I’m sure your ‘trained scientific mind’ wouldn’t want to confuse these.

which would lead to this forum crowd-funding an Appeal

I’m broke with supporting crowd-funding cases!

Notarobot_2

You sent me to my dictionary, which defines illegal as unlawful! If they pursue someone without lawful cause they are involved in harrassment. There are probably degrees of this which may vary between
civil nuisance and crimimal offences which I am certainly not fsamiliar with. But the behaviour is wrong and open to challenge.

Coupon-mad

We are not disagreeing with you, yes it's harassment and causes distress! Keep all the letters.

Trouble is, the DVLA says that a parking firm DOES have reasonable cause to get the keeper's data in order to ask who was driving.

All they can do is ask for the driver's name until they get bored.

Yep...but some daft PPCs try a claim anyway 'on the assumption the keeper was the driver' and some stupid courts have (on odd occasions) agreed. I seem to recall (pepipoo poster) Janeo's case at Wigan court went that way, Judge was awful.

However, here on this MSE forum, we help 99% of people to win their defended cases.

Notarobot_2

Thank you again, Coupon -mad.

On reflection I have taken on board forum advice to throw more of the kitchen at it and this is my current draft if you can bear to comment. The thread Notice to Keeper 1 month after event 5170188 is good on the core point. What I show below is only on the main issue; all the rest of the boiler-plate does not need to appear here.

Dear Premier Parking Solutions

Your ref XXXXXXX

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned.
This Parking Charge is hereby appealed.

The driver at the time of this incident will never be identified, so

cannot be pursued. Further requests on this will be ignored and filed

under ‘harrassment’.

The grounds for this appeal are unenforceability of the PCN; the

human unreasonableness of the charge, the legibility of the notices at

night and your right to raise such a charge.

1)Unenforceability
You have nobody to pursue. You do not and will not know and cannot

infer the driver (see Appendix 1). As a matter of law you cannot seek

to transfer liability to the keeper without a POFA-compliant NtK, which

as you must know you do not have (deemed arrival 19 days after the

incident, no required wording about keeper liability after 28 days,

thereby failing the requirements of POFA 2012 section 9 -

see Appendix 2) and cannot now obtain. Further NtKs you may send will
simply be ignored and filed under ‘harrassment’.

The PCN must therefore be cancelled, as confirmed by multiple decisions

by the truly independent ADR POPLA (Appendix 3).

Not to do so would be unprofessional and potentially vexatious. On

this basis any further action you may take will lead to complaints

to DVLA and IPC, and if your chosen ADR the IAS continues to miss

this point (if it comes to an IAS appeal) a similar complaint will

be made as regards its integrity and competence.

2)Human unreasonableness
It is true that there was an overstay of 23 minutes including

grace periods (the ticket purchased for 2 hours is available, with the

correct registration number). The car park was empty at the times

noted and probably throughout and has no retail connection, so

there was no loss of income or damage to any party. The overstay

was caused by the unexpected need to help someone who had

gone to XXXXX Hospital with a broken foot, and it seemed more

appropriate to provide the help than to get back to an empty car

park in strict time. The amount of the penalty for such a

small breach in such a context would be judged unreasonable by

almost all humans, so this is your opportunity to show that you

apply human judgement to your technological results and cancel the

PCN (leaving aside its unenforceability). Your response on this

point will be noted to the Landowner and in any subsequent action.

I recognise that you have already incurred certain minimal expenses in

issuing the NtK as you have set out elsewhere before having had an

opportunity to consider the context. Therefore, without prejudice but

to demonstrate reasonableness and a distaste for prolonging this nonsense,
this appeal carries an offer to pay £15 with no admission of any

liability if you cancel the PCN immediately. This covers your expenses

to date and is arguably the only point at which you can end this

matter without a loss. Please do not mistake reasonableness for

weakness as some have suggested to me you may.


Any continuation of this matter will be met with steady resistance with

the resources of online forums and professional friends, since

ultimately it is a matter of protecting the integrity of the law.

A rejection of this offer will also be used later as necessary as evidence of your behaviour



There will follow standard material from the above thread and other

threads about signage, right to charge, future behaviour, expenses etc.,
and appendices.
Appendix 1 will contain extensive material including Henry Greenslade enerally as in the very useful material at the end of thread 5170188
(Notice to keeper 1 month after the event).


Should, despite all the above, this matter finish up in Court be

advised that expenses for any loss of earnings will be claimed as is

permitted, and the possibility that the claim could be regarded as

vexatious will also be explored.

Umkomaas

What are you planning after this is rejected?

Notarobot_2

What will I do next, Unkomas?!

Take myself at my word that rejection shows unacceptable misunderstanding of the rules and report accordingly to DVLA and IPC. Appeal to IAS and complain similarly about them to DVLA and IPC.
File any further letters under 'harrassment'. Defend with enthusiasm at CC if necessary, claiming expenses on the basis of the record. Consider involving the MP. It seems necessary to establish the rule of law.

There also seems a case about signage. There are only two signs. The one at the entrance does not mention parking charges. The one behind the machine has dense wording with the PCN sentence right at the bottom in bold but not a bigger font than the main text and not in larger font and/or red like material at the top about Private Land and Contract. Even in daylight parking by and using the machine would have the Parking Charge bit obscured by the machine. At night there is no lighting - Denning's red pointer it is not. Photos at night are being obtained and they will be asked to provide full specifications and their own images of their signs by day and night. Their right to charge after dark will be in question.

One does have to wonder about the mind-set of a company that would reject this appeal. They will be well into loss territory by the time they have replied, let alone dealt with the IAS appeal. I wish I could send you an image, Beavis it is not..

Notarobot_2

PPS granted the Appeal. Thanks to all who helped at the start. No reason given. The unenforceability argument was vigorously stated, with promises to complain to DVLA and IPC on grounds of misunderstanding POFA and unprofessional behaviour if they did not understand. Unlit signage (parking started shortly after lighting -up time), and non-compliant signage (two signs still had BPA membership, signs on way in had red warnings about not parking in entrance area on pain of clearly signed PCN warning (thereby breaking the IPC requirement to state all terms and conditions or none) and PCN warning on the main board being lost in a msss of black text and largely obscured from view by the meter when paying) may have swayed them. A pragmatic offer to pay £15 to cover the actual costs of issuing the PCN was accepted. No way of knowing if that made a difference.