Parking Awareness Service (PAS) PCN

[Deleted User]

Write to PAS as follows:

1. You requested details of the RK later than POFA 14 days. This has been confirmed by the DVLA who have recorded the request on [date]
2. You misled the RK on [date] when you said that a DVLA audit had delayed the NtK, which was always non-compliant. This will be drawn to the attention of the Court. The Court will be invited to draw adverse inferences in connection with any supporting documents relied upon by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant has no obligation to name the driver
4. There is no presumption in law of a vehicle driver (civil or criminal) albeit it is acknowledged that the Court may make a finding of fact in this regard if, for example, there is independent supporting evidence
5. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the RK was the driver

The Defendant believes that this matter is wholly unmeritorious. The Claimant has no evidential basis to pursue a civil action against the registered keeper. If this matter proceeds to litigation, the Defendant will seek his costs of defending the claim pursuant to CPR Part 27(1)(g) to include the costs of pre action correspondence on an hourly rate basis, where the Claimant knew or ought to have known that litigation would be unsuccessful.

johjames

Johnersh wrote: »

Write to PAS as follows:

1. You requested details of the RK later than POFA 14 days. This has been confirmed by the DVLA who have recorded the request on [date]
2. You misled the RK on [date] when you said that a DVLA audit had delayed the NtK, which was always non-compliant. This will be drawn to the attention of the Court. The Court will be invited to draw adverse inferences in connection with any supporting documents relied upon by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant has no obligation to name the driver
4. There is no presumption in law of a vehicle driver (civil or criminal) albeit it is acknowledged that the Court may make a finding of fact in this regard if, for example, there is independent supporting evidence
5. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the RK was the driver

The Defendant believes that this matter is wholly unmeritorious. The Claimant has no evidential basis to pursue a civil action against the registered keeper. If this matter proceeds to litigation, the Defendant will seek his costs of defending the claim pursuant to CPR Part 27(1)(g) to include the costs of pre action correspondence on an hourly rate basis, where the Claimant knew or ought to have known that litigation would be unsuccessful.

Thanks Johnersh, I'll do that.

johjames

johjames wrote: »

Thanks Johnersh, I'll do that.

Would there be any harm in adding the flowing to your well crafted response Johnersh?
7. You are aware that Keeper liability cannot be enforced due to your POFA 2012 breach and as the driver cannot be established and was not me, it is therefore logical that any further communications you or any third parties nominated by you, choose to have with me will be breaching the DPA and will be considered harassment, given the undue distress caused to me.
Should this occur, you will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

Thanks again.

[Deleted User]

The test for what constitutes harassment is found in British Gas v Ferguson (Google it). Most cases won't be severe enough.

johjames

Johnersh wrote: »

The test for what constitutes harassment is found in British Gas v Ferguson (Google it). Most cases won't be severe enough.

Thanks again Johnersh, an interesting read! In light of this, I suspect that it would be the degree of contact and the content of the same which may potentially amount to harrassment, although that would have to be decided by the Courts. Given the distress the contact from PAS is causing me, I think I'll leave it. I'll let you know what happens.

Coupon-mad

It is a good idea to start laying down markers as proof of your distress, in case you do ever decide to claim or counter-claim against them within the next few years.

e.g. send an email or two, to friends/family, now, saying how upset this has made you and your family, explaining how it has made you lose sleep/ waste time which would have been spent on family time, etc. Feeling stressed, suffering from headaches, work slipping, gone to the GP about stress? Say so in writing to family now, if true, of course. Only the truth.

Keep those emails, keep proof of distress in some way, in your back pocket for later.

johjames

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It is a good idea to start laying down markers as proof of your distress, in case you do ever decide to claim or counter-claim against them within the next few years.

e.g. send an email or two, to friends/family, now, saying how upset this has made you and your family, explaining how it has made you lose sleep/ waste time which would have been spent on family time, etc. Feeling stressed, suffering from headaches, work slipping, gone to the GP about stress? Say so in writing to family now, if true, of course. Only the truth.

Keep those emails, keep proof of distress in some way, in your back pocket for later.

Thanks Coupon-M, good advice.

johjames

A further update for anyone who's interested. If anything I hope that the thread assists those who are given PCN's by PAS, particularly so they can see that whilst PAS's communications can appear intimidating, they seem to hold no real worth when looked at closely. In this case I particularly like their ridiculous and ongoing untruth regarding the lateness of their request to the DVLA outside of the POFA 14 days. I look forward to contacting the ICO soon!
I sent PAS the following communication, not really believing that it would have any effect, but rather to lay a foundation should they escalate proceedings which it looks like they will. Thanks to Johnersh and Coupon-M for the inspiration and advice:

1. You requested details of the Registered Keeper later than the POFA 2012 compliant 14 days. This has been confirmed by the DVLA who have recorded the request on xx.
2. You misled the Registered Keeper on xx when you said that a DVLA audit had delayed the Notice to Keeper, which was always non-compliant. If required, this will be drawn to the attention of the Court. The Court will be invited to draw adverse inferences in connection with any supporting documents relied upon by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant has no obligation to name the driver.
4. There is no presumption in law of a vehicle driver (civil or criminal) albeit it is acknowledged that the Court may make a finding of fact in this regard if, for example, there is independent supporting evidence.
5. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Registered Keeper was the driver.
6. Please provide the Defendant with the name and address of the Landowner.
7. The Claimant is aware that Keeper liability cannot be enforced due to their POFA 2012 breach and as the driver cannot be established and was not the Defendant, it is therefore logical that any further communications which the Claimant, or any third parties nominated by them, choose to have with the Defendant may be breaching the DPA and may be considered harassment, given the undue distress caused to the Defendant as the Registered Keeper. Should this occur, the Claimant will be reported to the Information Commissioner.

The Defendant believes that this matter is wholly unmeritorious. The Claimant has no evidential basis to pursue a civil action against the registered keeper. If this matter proceeds to litigation, the Defendant will seek his costs of defending the claim pursuant to CPR Part 27(14)(g) to include the costs of pre action correspondence on an hourly rate basis, where the Claimant knew or ought to have known that litigation would be unsuccessful.

I subsequently received the following communication from PAS:

Thank you for your correspondence.

The request for the keepers details was not made under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - legally these details can still be requested outside of POFA.

We have had multiple audits by the DVLA which have taken a lot of time and have caused delays in processing of PCNs. This is the truth and we are willing to explain this in court as this most definitely the case, which is why the PCN was not issued under POFA.

3 &4. If you the keeper choose not disclose the drivers details, that is your right; as the PCN was not issued under POFA you the keeper will be assumed as the driver unless proven otherwise.

We are unable to disclose any details regarding the legal identity of the landowner as this would be a breach of Data Protection.

The signs clearly displayed on-site clearly state that you must allocate a period of parking to your vehicle registration, which your vehicle did not. The signs clearly state that if you remain on-site without adhering to the terms and conditions displayed, you agree to a pay a Parking Charge Notice of £100. The signs clearly displayed on site clearly state that the keepers details may be requested from the DVLA if the terms and conditions of parking are breached. To legitimately request the keeper details from the DVLA we have to have lawful grounds. In this instance these grounds have been met as the reason your details were requested was because of a breach of contract.

Please note that your PCN has now been handed over to DebtLogic Debt Recovery. Please direct all further correspondence to them as we are no longer in control of the PCN.

Regards,
Enquiries Team
Parking Awareness Services

Castle

johjames wrote: »

We have had multiple audits by the DVLA which have taken a lot of time and have caused delays in processing of PCNs. This is the truth and we are willing to explain this in court as this most definitely the case, which is why the PCN was not issued under POFA.

You could always send a F.O.I request to the DVLA and ask copies of any correspondence, (including audits), between P.A.S and the DVLA over the last year/2 years for example.

The DPA would only apply to the landowner if they were a person; Companies are not covered under the DPA.

[Deleted User]

as the PCN was not issued under POFA you the keeper will be assumed as the driver unless proven otherwise.

Assumed by them, perhaps. Not in law. There is still no presumption in law that the keeper = the driver (unlike in most European countries).

The onus is on them to prove who was driving, whatever they say....