Apologies for yet another new thread

KeithP

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

My understanding of pofa is that if a windscreen notice is issued then the ntk should be posted on day 29...
Only anpr cases can ntk be sent within 14 days.
Does this mean that vcs have met pofa requirements?

No, it does not.

That is because VCS have managed to convince the BPA and the DVLA that the empty envelope stuck to the windscrean is not a Notice to Driver, but merely a warning that a NtK may follow in the post.

Fruitcake

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

My understanding of pofa is that if a windscreen notice is issued then the ntk should be posted on day 29...
Only anpr cases can ntk be sent within 14 days.
Does this mean that vcs have met pofa requirements?

This is not correct. The POFA 2012 requirements take some understanding, and many people including PPCs get it wrong.

Joe_whenjung

Redx wrote: »

is the NTK dated and if so is it 12 days or less after the date of the incident ?

looking at post #1 it seems to be dated 7 days after the incident

a shame the envelope is not postmarked with the date

its your word against theirs

Just for the record, there are three potential options to identify the date of posting from an envelope.
1. It the envelope uses a stamp, it should have a post mark with a date.
2. If the envelope is sent using a franking machine, the franking indicia should have the date
3. Almost all letters processed by Royal Mail will have a very faint series on orange lines on the envelope. This is a barcode which holds information on the item - mainly used to identify the postcode of the address. However it also holds the details of the first machine that processed it - date, time and location. NEVER THROW THE ENVELOPES AWAY.

whiskeytoothpaste

I've been stung here then. I thought that the thing on the windscreen was a NTD. Therefore failing POFA as the NTK (which seems compliant) arrived on day 9.
Believing they failed POFA I have refused to identify the driver and actually feel genuinely mislead. Their solicitors have confirmed that they are not relying on POFA but now I don't trust them. It seems that this company is ambivalent with everything it does. I'm feeling back to square one and not sure how to proceed now.

whiskeytoothpaste

I interpreted this as a NTD and because of this that they had not met POFA conditions. It seems that they want to play the law both ways. (Now I'm desperate to find a non-POFA compliant something!) I can't give up now it's been too long.

bergkamp

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

I interpreted this as a NTD and because of this that they had not met POFA conditions. It seems that they want to play the law both ways. (Now I'm desperate to find a non-POFA compliant something!) I can't give up now it's been too long.

They are not relying on POFA and keeper liability you said... So they know the driver s name and address then?

Joe_whenjung

Im a bit confused here. My understanding is that if they are not relying on POFA, then only the driver can be liable - and they dont know who the driver was.

KeithP

Joe_whenjung wrote: »

Im a bit confused here. My understanding is that if they are not relying on POFA, then only the driver can be liable - and they dont know who the driver was.

That is correct.

Joe_whenjung

So its all good. If they arent using POFA, they may as well be going after Dave the Butcher. He has as much liability as the registered keeper.

Umkomaas

Joe_whenjung wrote: »

So its all good. If they arent using POFA, they may as well be going after Dave the Butcher. He has as much liability as the registered keeper.

But they will argue that the keeper is the driver by dint of ‘reasonable presumption’ and quote Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films - both discredited numerous times by numerous county court judges, but it doesn’t stop them quoting the cases, leaving the defendant to ensure they cover them in their defence.