Debt Tecovery

BusyBee1904

thank you for your replies. I do realise that NCP, TRACE and CAB are idiots but unfortunately those idiots are grinding me down. I'm no pushover and I want to fight my corner so guys, I really really appreciate all your help. Thank you

beamerguy

BusyBee1904 wrote: »

thank you for your replies. I do realise that NCP, TRACE and CAB are idiots but unfortunately those idiots are grinding me down. I'm no pushover and I want to fight my corner so guys, I really really appreciate all your help. Thank you

Well don't let them, debt collector letters, get a match,
set fire to them, flush them, cat litter, budgie cage ...
that's all they are worth
Debt collectors involved in the parking scam can do ZERO

As you say they are idiots, more like droids, pond life

And, if you phone them, you will end up talking to probably
an ex failed double glazing salesman or a crash for cash
claims company. This is where the failures end up

Umkomaas

I am advised that a name and full address was provided for the driver, however, as the person concerned is a resident of Dusseldorf, outside of the UK, the operator was unable to accept that as a servicable address. Schedule Four of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires a servicable address to be supplied in order to transfer liability. As none has been supplied, the liablity has reverted back to the Registered Keeper in accordance with the legislation.

Sorry late coming to this .....

Wrong, the PoFA does not require a ‘serviceable address’. The PoFA requires an ‘address for service’ and there is nothing wrong in providing a such address anywhere in the world - nothing in PoFA that says to the contrary. Nothing in PoFA requires a UK address. Different if you were saying ‘Mr M Mouse, Disneyland, Orlando, Florida’, or ‘Mr Man, The Moon, Space’, neither of which would be an ‘address for service’ nor a ‘serviceable address’.

The BPA’s AOS Compliance Team member needs to read the Act much more carefully, not throw out fob-off lines, clearly informed by guesswork and supposition.

So you have definitely fully complied with the Law, not someone’s misguided interpretation of it. This is what PoFA says:

current address for service” means—
(a)in the case of the keeper, an address which is either—
(i) an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii) the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or
(b) in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;

Within the Act, the word ‘serviceable’ is never used.

Oddly enough, the BPA Code of Practice uses precisely the same wording in Appendix C, para 2

entitled to recover unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle; “current address for service” means: (a) in the case of the keeper, an address which is either: (i) an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or(ii) the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or(b) in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;

Again, other than used in a flow-chart label as shorthand, the word ‘serviceable’ is not used. Appendix E, page 40.

It is not in the BPA’s gift to attempt to interpret the law by utilising a word with a much different meaning!

So ..... what to do.

Write this time to Steve Clark, who will understand the difference at the following email. Mark the email header ‘For the personal attention of Mr Clark’

steve.c@britishparking.co.uk

And, importantly, copy this email and attach a copy of the previous BPA email to the DVLA and ask they get involved, because the BPA are misinterpreting the PoFA to the benefit of their member, with you, the keeper being disadvantaged by their quite appalling misrepresentation.

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk

[Deleted User]

+1 Umkomaas. The wording of POFA is actually quite clear (and not what is represented by the claimant)

"current address for service” means—
(a)in the case of the keeper, an address which is either—
(i)an address at which documents relating to civil proceedings could properly be served on the person concerned under Civil Procedure Rules; or
(ii)the keeper’s registered address (if there is one); or
(b)in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;


Parliament could easily have added the words 'within England and wales' in that. They did not do so. Thus, I'd suggest that your obligations have been fully discharged - esp if that is the drivers primary residential address (although POFA doesn't use even that wording).

BusyBee1904

Just to keep you updated, the reply I received from Mr Clark:

"Thanks again for your e-mail.

I have to confess that I have been following your case on MSE - some of the regular posters will be aware that while not contributing directly, I do take a keen interest in what is being said on the site.

This is an interesting conundrum as I don’t believe that Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) is sufficiently clear on this point. I don’t expect there to be full agreement by the MSE followers in what I am about to say but I hope that my considerations are received in the spirit that they are made;

· The purpose of POFA was to establish a mechanism to overcome the situation in the pre-POFA period where a keeper could simply say that he/she was not the driver or that they did not know the driver, and parking operators were pretty much powerless to do anything about it. At the same time as the arrival of POFA, Government asked us to introduce an independent appeals service and POPLA was born. The purpose of this part of my note is to set some context and hopefully gain agreement that things are better in 2017 than they were back in 2012.

· There is nothing in POFA that says that an address given for a driver when you as keeper are seeking to transfer liability, has to be in the UK.

· Furthermore there is nothing in POFA that says that an address given under such circumstances can’t be foreign - it does not overtly permit it though either.

· I think that we would all agree that a totally fictitious address like Disneyland or the Moon would be wholly inappropriate - one of the posters actually says this.

· For me the lack of clarity comes to the fore within the section of POFA that defines the current address for service - (b) in the case of the driver, an address at which the driver for the time being resides or can conveniently be contacted;

· Of course in giving an address in Germany for the driver, you have provided an address at which the driver for the time being resides but is an address in Germany a location where the driver can conveniently be contacted?

· While I am sure that you and the posters on MSE will have no doubt that it is, I am not certain at all. Of course I agree that putting a stamp on an envelope and sending it to Germany is eminently achievable but with differing legislative frameworks in both countries, can effective contact be made, and consequently is the purpose of POFA in identifying the driver, being properly achieved ?- I don’t know.

· Subsequently there is enough uncertainty for me to conclude that NCP are not in breach of our Code of Practice in taking the position that they have. Furthermore I would support the contention that perhaps such a case should be put before a Judge and to see what he concludes - until that happens we can all conjecture as much as we like.

Now of course it’s all very well for me to give my opinion and for others to cast their opinions on MSE, but you are the one with the actual ticket and I am guessing that you want to be able to resolve the matter as quickly as possible - or put another way, this is my job and the posters on MSE are helpfully providing you with advice on how to proceed but none of us have the worry of the ticket hanging over us.

I propose to make contact with NCP and share the contents of this e-mail with them, to see how they wish to proceed. It is not within my powers to compel a member to a particular course action, unless I believe they have breached the Code but I am sure that the MSE people will tell you that I have a track record of getting things sorted.

I hope that this is helpful and that I have answered your questions."

Guys_Dad

I suggest that you contact Mr Clark and remind him of the situation relating to Hire companies.

A UK based hire company who rents a car to a foreign driver can only give the address the hirer supplied and was verified with his driving licence.

If that hirer lived in Germany or the USA or anywhere outside these shores, is he actually saying that the liability would fall back on the hire company?? I'd like to see that argument fly.

He writes " The purpose of POFA was to establish a mechanism to overcome the situation in the pre-POFA period where a keeper could simply say that he/she was not the driver or that they did not know the driver, and parking operators were pretty much powerless to do anything about it."

Well, this is not the case here. You have named the driver and it's unfortunate they live abroad.

You could just get round it by writing to the PPC saying that since you can't serve it to him in Germany, then use your address as the address for service and I will inform him, but you may only issue that in his name not mine. Any legal action would, therefore, be against the named driver, albeit using my address.

If they do that, then your friend would simply notify them, after the NtK arrived at your address, of his "new" German address where all future correspondence should go.

nosferatu1001

CPRs allow for an overseas address
So no, it isn’t unclear. It states an address for service. It is convenient to contact someone in Germany, which is all that the act requires. It does not require that it be convenient to serve them papers that have a hope of succeeding.

Double down on the hire point.

There is a clear breach. It is a complete fabrication to state the address must be inside England and Wales.

Umkomaas

Whatever else is said, you can always be sure that Steve Clark will be professional and courteous in his responses, and if he’s reading this, I’d like to thank him for his approachability and his way of dealing with things. The fact that I think he’s wrong does not cloud my view.

Johnersh, a trained lawyer has given his comments on this in post #25, and I’m afraid they are in support of what I’ve said and in some contrast to the views expressed by Mr Clark.

bargepole

Perhaps a valid comparison could be made with the requirement to nominate the driver under s172 when a speeding NIP arrives.

If the driver genuinely was your cousin visiting from Canada, and you supply his Canadian address, that might raise a few eyebrows at the Camera office, but if they checked it out and it’s a real person and a real address, that satisfies the legal requirements.

So if it’s good enough for the Road Traffic Act 1988, it should be fine for POFA 2012.

Taking Mr Clark's point about POFA originally being introduced so that keepers could be held liable if the PPC didn't know the name of the driver, in this case they do know the name of the driver, and have a valid address for service. Nowhere in Schedule 4 does it say that it must be a UK address, or one in England & Wales.

The driver can be 'conveniently contacted' at the address in Germany, where their Bundespost works very well, I believe.

And the Civil Procedure Rules allow for court claims to be served in another EU member state, so NCP can pursue that avenue if they wish.

nosferatu1001

Indeed. It says convenient to contact. Not convenient to serve a valid claim on.