Question about the NTK compliance (from sticky)

gcn504

All,

So I've read the following in the sticky;

If the NTK arrives late, this does not make the PCN 'void' but it means there is 'no keeper liability' possible.

If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket.

Or, the NTK must arrive with you between day 29 and day 57 if there was a windscreen PCN.

Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, Highview, Smart Parking and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA 2012 wording so the keeper is not liable if you point that out to POPLA.

So I had a ticket from Britannia which came through the post where the date of notice was about 19 days after the 'contravention'

I used another site for guidance and they told me to just ignore it - so I did and I've gone through 2 different Debt Recovery companies contact me for payment which I also ignored. I buckled slightly and wrote to Britannia recently telling them I was the owner (never telling them who the driver was) and that I wanted it to stop as they were outside of the 14 day period quoted in the POFA.

They responded recently saying; that the POFA 2012 is only relevant if I was not the driver (as I said, I wrote to them telling them I was the keeper never who the driver was) - they also said the 14 day only applies if they refer to Keeper Liability provisions when they issue the PCN - as they did not, they believe they have 35 days to notify.

This was NOT a window ticket.

So, "If they are a firm which alleges 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 (which they don't have to!) the a postal PCN must arrive by day 14 if there was no windscreen ticket."

Where do I stand on the keeper liability as I'm slightly confused.

Thanks

KeithP

I can't see the confusion.

Your quote from the sticky is right.

If the keeper doesn't receive the NtK in the period mentioned then the keeper cannot be held liable.

That does not mean the PPC cannot pursue the keeper, perhaps because they believe the keeper was the driver, but at the end of the day, if they cannot prove that the keeper was the driver they will lose.

Guys_Dad

Since you have engaged with the enemy, then quote their own words back at them

Dear Britannia,

I reconfirm that I was NOT the driver on the day in question. As you are not using the provisions of POFA and do not wish to use the Keeper Liability provisions of the Act, then you must pursue the driver and no me, the registered keeper. If you can provide details of who the driver was on this occasion, I will gladly pass the details of your charge on to them.

You have confirmed that you served the notice to Keeper outside the 14 day period demanded by POFA, so you are not able to retrospectively change your mind on that point.

Please, therefore, desist from contacting me on this matter."

Or words to that effect. Short and to the point.

gcn504

In my letters I never confirmed or denied who the driver was merely that I was the keeper.

Do you think it's still ok to use your words. As I said I buckled as I just want this to go away and it's been dragging on for months.

waamo

Guys Dads words are perfect. Why wouldn’t you use them?

Coupon-mad

You really should have seen this off at POPLA, dead easy to win. Now you will get letter after letter. You should be ignoring them now. You CANNOT be held liable and they've not actually said you are...

gcn504

Must admit thought this had 'gone away' after my last letter using:\\

Dear Britannia,

I reconfirm that I was NOT the driver on the day in question. As you are not using the provisions of POFA and do not wish to use the Keeper Liability provisions of the Act, then you must pursue the driver and no me, the registered keeper. If you can provide details of who the driver was on this occasion, I will gladly pass the details of your charge on to them.

You have confirmed that you served the notice to Keeper outside the 14 day period demanded by POFA, so you are not able to retrospectively change your mind on that point.

Please, therefore, desist from contacting me on this matter."\

However, now received a letter from BW Legal saying I have 16 days to pay the fine or they will seek their Clients Instructions to start legal proceedings in the County Court.

Sorry it's been so long could someone point me in the right direction - is it the Newbies sections for LBC?

KeithP

That's not a Letter Before Claim.

You need to read post #4 of the NEWBIES thread.

That post offers comprehensive guidance on how to deal with debt collector's letters.

gcn504

There seems to be suggestion that you can ask for Popla outside of the usual time limit.

My defence has always been the NTK arriving late. Can I write to them asking for Popla quoting the case that's mentioned in that post?

gcn504

Ok need some further advice.

I've been trying to make this go away and ignored things as much as possible but it's been dragging on for over a year with now BW Legal on my case.

So originally the PCN - Notice to Keeper date of notice was 25th Sept and contravention 6th Sept.

I've always maintained: "I reconfirm that I was NOT the driver on the day in question. As you are not using the provisions of POFA and do not wish to use the Keeper Liability provisions of the Act, then you must pursue the driver and no me, the registered keeper. If you can provide details of who the driver was on this occasion, I will gladly pass the details of your charge on to them.

You have confirmed that you served the notice to Keeper outside the 14 day period demanded by POFA, so you are not able to retrospectively change your mind on that point."

BW Legal are saying that as the registered keeper of the vehicle and I have not provided them with the n&a of the driver within 28 days. I am liable. "Our client is able to hold you liable for unpaid parking charge on the reasonable presumption that the driver of the vehicle had either actual or ostensible authority to enter into a contract with our client in relation to parking on your behalf. This is supported by the case Combined Parking Solutions Ltd v AJH Films Ltd [2015] EWCA 1453"
As this matter was not appealed to our client with 29 days of the date on the notice to keeper - our client is under no obligation to provide you with a Popla code.

Any advice?

Fruitcake

The ADR Act 2015 states that ADR should be available for not less that 12 months. Complain to the scammers, BPA, DVLA, and your MP that you are being denied access to an independent appeals service in breach of an art of parliament.

BW legal are telling lies. Combined Parking Solutions versus AJH Films has been rubbished in court many times ant they know it. A judge will easily throw it out. (Look it up to see what it was actually about.)

Reiterate that the keeper has no liability as the NTK is outwith the very strict requirements of the PoFA 2012.
Any other assertion is ridiculous and irrelevant. Should they procced on these grounds you will apply for costs for their unreasonable behaviour.

What did your MP say when you previously complained?

These things don't go away on their own. You need to do the legwork. All we can do is point you in the right direction.