No Windscreen PCN, NTK arrived late?

beeepaaah

Hi

I've spent quite a lot of time looking over the site today but just want to clarify something I'm struggling with, and that's the NTK timeframes.

If the scenario was that no windscreen PCN was issued and then a notice to keep er was sent that was dated 35 days after the alleged contravention and which actually came through the letter box 51 days after the alleged contravention!) then from what I gather this is invalid?

No PCN has been seen in relation to this. No evidence of a PCN having been affixed to the vehicle involved has been supplied.

Given the above, should I rely on the templates or just create a bespoke response on this basis?

Many thanks - my head is hurting!

pappa_golf

I gather this is invalid?

not invalid as such , it just means that they cannot rely on the POFa , which would have let then go after the owner if the driver was not named


lots of companies do not bother with POFa , and simply state that they are chasing the owner

if this is a BPA company , then in theory lack of POFA should result in you winning

if an IPC company , they will not give a dam and just continue , as far as court in the hope of wearing you down and paying up

waamo

I bet this is a case of ghost ticketing. They put a ticket on, take a photo, then remove the ticket.

beeepaaah

pappa_golf wrote: »

I gather this is invalid?

not invalid as such , it just means that they cannot rely on the POFa , which would have let then go after the owner if the driver was not named


lots of companies do not bother with POFa , and simply state that they are chasing the owner

if this is a BPA company , then in theory lack of POFA should result in you winning

if an IPC company , they will not give a dam and just continue , as far as court in the hope of wearing you down and paying up

They are BPA from what I can see. BUt do you think it is best to do the same first stage template response as per newbies thread or respond on that basis. I assume that the initial response is reliant on getting the POPLA code to take it to the next stage, but if any hope of quashing it immediately then even better.
Oh, and it was a railway car park so also not sure how byelaws and POFA work together - from what I can tell they don't and it's either one or the other, but if byelaws then only government agencies can fine you, otherwise has to be POFA and adherent?

Thanks!

beeepaaah

waamo wrote: »

I bet this is a case of ghost ticketing. They put a ticket on, take a photo, then remove the ticket.

Hmm - there is the ability to look on a website to see their evidence. So far this hasn't been used as things like that may be logged in some way and attempted to be used?

Coupon-mad

No they are not logged, they aren't that clever and who cares?

Look now and take screenshots, I do this all the time.

Is there a picture that looks like it has a windscreen PCN, and does the NTK refer to a PCN issued earlier, or not? You can tell from the wording at the start of the NTK.

Which PPC, is it NCP or APCOA? Both easy to beat.

beeepaaah

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Look now and take screenshots, I do this all the time.

Is there a picture that looks like it has a windscreen PCN, and does the NTK refer to a PCN issued earlier, or not? You can tell from the wording at the start of the NTK.

Which PPC, is it NCP or APCOA? Both easy to beat.

Thank you!
It's APCOA.
The paperwork they have sent shows the vehicle with no PCN attached.
Just checked that site and looks like waama was correct - they have one photo the same as they have sent and another with a ticket on the windscreen (that wasn't there when the vehicle was later used).

The wording at the start of the NTK says "A parking charge notice was issued to the above vehicle. The driver of the vehicle at that time is required to pay the parking charges in respect of the above. However, the parking charge notice has not yet been paid".

One element of stress is that the NTK states what I believe to be the standard 28 day thing. The date of the NTK is 16/01/18 yet only arrived yesterday. Whilst the NTK was sent 35 days after the alleged contravention (parking in a restricted area):
a) it took 17 days from that point for the NTK to come through the letter box, leaving not much time to appeal, and
b) from what i have read if they are relying on a PCN being issued (even if then removed) then doesn't that change the timescale they have to issue the NTK to 56 days?

As no PCN was on the vehicle then no appeal has yet been made and my concern is that they are still within the timescales to issue the NTK and so POFA is still legit?

I'm worried that things have been organised to catch people out and/or the reliance on POFA is not available...
:-(

Coupon-mad

One element of stress is that the NTK states what I believe to be the standard 28 day thing.

I've never seen an APCOA one that actually gets 8(2)f right (check Schedule 4, spot the difference).
APCOA do NOT normally use POFA NTKs, so read the Schedule, it's linked in the NEWBIES thread and is in simple bullet points, dead easy to read.

beeepaaah

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I've never seen an APCOA one that actually gets 8(2)f right (check Schedule 4, spot the difference).
APCOA do NOT normally use POFA NTKs, so read the Schedule, it's linked in the NEWBIES thread and is in simple bullet points, dead easy to read.

Thank you - I really appreciate your help. I've had a look over that schedule many times...I guess the confusion for me is whether I am responding on the basis of a PCN being issued or just a NTK. As a PCN was never seen the NTK is the first correspondence on this. However, I assume they will say they have this photo that shows the PCN on the car...and as (I think) schedule 8 is for PCN issued and schedule 9 is NTK then I wasn't sure how to respond.

Should the first response still just be the one on the sticky or is there any merit in going down a route that also establishes the PCN was not present?

Also the 28 day stress thing I was generally meaning that the NTK says to respond within 28 days, but it took 17 days from the date of issue for it to come through the letter box. Schedule talks about assumption that something sent first class post arrives within two business days. There is nothing on the envelope to prove when it was posted, just the date on the NTK. It means there is much less time to respond and (due to work and family commitments) I in any case only have a few days to get the initial response to APCOA together...that's the stress element.

But also on the NTK issuing timings, again I was looking at responding on the basis that it was not sent in time as no PCN seen, but they will say no a PCN was issued here is a a photo. On that basis I am trying to clarify in my head whether they did issue in time at 51 days - I think I saw a 56 day limit quoted where a PCN has been issued, but also read about a 14 day time limit for them to issue from the date of the alleged contravention.

I'm just a bit confused which is the correct or most viable approach here.

Apologies if this seems like me being a bit thick - I'm just trying to understand something I have never explored before that I find a bit confusing.

Thanks for your help all!

Coupon-mad

Para 8 applies, as I said, whether or not you saw a PCN they are saying there was one.

beeepaaah

Okay...so I've just been down to the station to check this out. I spoke to the guy in the ticket office who came out to have a look with me and said that even if the vehicle had been parked in the staff bay, as long as the parking had been paid for they don't mind. *** He even said that they direct people to park in the staff bay when the car park is busy ***

So given that the "landowner" (or their representative) is actually telling people to park in this bay then surely this whole thing is a farce anyway?

The fact that the was no PCN on the vehicle to be found by the driver, the crappy timings on the communications etc is still true, but if the guys in the station are telling people to use the staff spaces then why are APCOA trying to ticket people who park there? Seems to be me that there is a lack of communication.

So should I send the template letter and add the element that the station staff tell people to park there and they need to go and talk to them etc? Feels like if station blessing is given to this then further pursuit of this matter would be harassment.

Thanks as always!