Neither Driver nor Keeper

Keycare

The circumstances thus far and trying not to provide too much incriminating detail...

A family member's car was parked in my driveway for a while as the owner is often working away. Whilst it was parked on my driveway I noticed that a PCN affixed to the window, I guess that the driver either didn't see it or chose to ignore it. The PCN had the text 'Documents enclosed must only be removed by authorised persons' on the plastic envelope and considering council parking tickets generally say that only the driver must remove the ticket. I removed it.

As the owner of the car was away and I didn't see that I was obliged to name the RK, I returned the notice back to the parking company, unopened.

The parking company replied to me saying that my representation had been declined and that I should either pay the charge or appeal through POPLA (with a ref). The PCN was not returned.

As far as I know, the RK has not received a NTK and the POPLA timeout date is in 2 days. I am not the driver or RK and was not a party to any alleged contract.

This may be an unusual scenario, but I don't see that I have done anything wrong. What should I do?

Thanks.

Umkomaas

Which parking company are you dealing with?

nosferatu1001

Indeed, why on eartrh do you have a parking company on "your" driveway? Or did it come from another site?

You could appeal to POPLA stating you are neither
1) the dirver
2) the keeper as given under POFA2012 Schedule 4

and as such you can have no liability in the matter. The appeal must be allowed on this basis. You suggest the PPC should check what theyre sent, as opposed to rejecting every "appeal" without reading the contents

It would be worthy of a complaint tot eh BPA, stating that CLEARLY they simply reject every communicaiton about a PCN, even when clearly this was not an appeal.

Keycare

Sorry for not being clear.

The car was ticketted in a carpark before the driver parked in my driveway. Company is TPS. I have not read the ticket as I didn't open it. I now know which car park it is, as I have spoken to the driver and even though they didn't notice the ticket (genuinely?), they have a good idea which carpark the ticket came from.

It's probably fair to say that the process may have been frustrated a bit by me facetiously returning an un-opened ticket, but surely they should just revert to the NTK procedure? I made no admissions in the initial letter returning the ticket, just that it was removed whilst the car was parked at my property. They have assumed that I was the driver.

Quentin

If you returned it unopened how do they know who you are??

Fruitcake

Unfortunately you have muddied the waters by getting involved. You must have given the PPC your contact details which was a silly thing to do. They are now likely to harass and hound you and could even try court.
This isn't the same as a driver ignoring a windscreen ticket. The PPC have assumed you were driving and will now harass you based on that assumption.

You could appeal to PoPLA as the day to day keeper as advised above, stating you were neither the driver nor RK. The scammers may ignore this.
PoPLA may find in the scammers favour, or they may find in yours.

You have made things harder for yourself and may now have to do some work to get rid of the problem. It is really important that the person who was driving at the time of the alleged event isn't identified. You should also ensure that 56 days pass to protect the RK.

Once that time has passed you could try contacting the BPA and PoPLA to tell them what actually happened, but don't hold your breath that this will go away.

Keycare

Yep, hindsight is sometimes painful.

I believe there is a solid defence in relation to the signage. Do you think I should submit that defence as the keeper (not RK) Or just submit that I am neither and tell them to pursue the RK? I think 56 days is the same day as the POPLA code expires.
I am quite happy to continue to fight (I have overcome 4 PPC demands in the last 10 years without court), so wont lie down.

Much appreciated.

Coupon-mad

I think 56 days is the same day as the POPLA code expires.

That's OK as POPLA codes last for 30 days or more.

As far as I know, the RK has not received a NTK and the POPLA timeout date is in 2 days. I am not the driver or RK and was not a party to any alleged contract.

Yes, prepare a POPLA appeal that tells POPLA that you were neither the driver not the keeper and in any case, TPS has failed to serve a NTK by day 56.

Then the usual other template appeal points from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread:

- appellant has not been shown to be the individual liable
- signs
- landowner authority

And because there is a new (I hope not rogue, just clueless) Assessor at POPLA now who clearly has not been trained properly, in case you get them, I would add this at the end:

Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given within 56 days and in any case I am neither the keeper nor the driver. The car was merely parked by a relative on my driveway when we discovered the offending 'PCN' later that day, and I was the person who rejected it (to help my relative) by returning the PCN back to the parking company, unopened. They took this to be an appeal and wrongly assumed I was the driver or keeper. I was neither, but I am the recipient of the POPLA code so I am using it.

POPLA Assessor, if you think that looking at the Notice to Driver instead, and comparing that to the POFA is acceptable (as happened in a very wrong 'Gemini Parking' POPLA decision prior to Christmas that is in the public domain and needs addressing as a terrible POPLA error and woeful lack of POFA training) then you are not correct, must NOT take that step and must refer this case first, to your Lead Adjudicator, because POPLA is not entitled under any rule of law to make a finding against a non-driving appellant, in a case without a Notice to Keeper. This will continue to be stated in appeals until all POPLA Assessors get this simple matter right in terms of satisfying yourselves that the appellant is the liable party, which (clearly) I am not.

Keycare

Do yo have a link or any information about the 'Gemini Parking' decision.

Thanks.

Keycare

Draft POPLA letter....

I write with regard to appeal reference XXXX and the letter received from Total Parking Solutions (TPS) dated XXXX stating that my representation has been declined and directing me to appeal via POPLA.
Firstly, I was neither the driver of the vehicle nor the keeper nor the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged breach of contract.
In my letter to TPS of 24th November 2017, I made it clear that I discovered the Parking Charge Notice affixed to the vehicle in question whilst it was parked in my driveway, I returned the notice to TPS as a favour due the registered keeper being unavailable. As I am under no obligation to determine who was driving the vehicle, at the time that the notice was affixed to the vehicle and there was no information relating to who was authorised to remove the notice from the vehicle, I returned the notice (unopened) to owner of the notice (which could be seen on the notice without removing it from the clear pocket).
TPS appear to have made the incorrect assumption that I was the driver and, therefore, in breach of the terms of their parking contract. I have made no admission or any representation as to who the driver was at the time the contract was alleged to have been formed. However as they have provided me with the POPLA appeal code I am now making representation.
As I am not the registered keeper, I cannot say whether a ‘Notice to keeper’ has been received by them. I am therefore neither a party to the contract alleged to have been entered into nor in breach of any contract that TPS alleges to have been formed.
If the correct procedure in relation to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ has been followed and TPS can correctly establish keeper liability, I suggest that as they pursue the registered keeper. If the correct procedures required to establish keeper liability have not been followed, I suggest that, as POPLA is not entitled under any rule of law to make a finding against a non-driving appellant, in a case without a Notice to Keeper, this appeal should be allowed.
I have no further information to add and trust that this matter is now closed and that you inform TPS to no longer contact me regarding this matter.
Yours etc…


To prove that I was no where near the carpark in question, I have my google maps timeline output, should I mention/include it?

Cheers.

Keycare

Just to close this off. TPS did not contest my appeal at POPLA. Result!