Name the driver - reset the clock?

ampersand

op -
1st. DO NOT START A NEW THREAD.
#
'their NTK letter looks pretty compliant to me,'
- Seeking advice here suggests you are not best-versed to judge, kindly said:-)

You are not banking up 'months possibly years of stress', unless you choose a scumpany as rôle model for your Life.
Yes, copy to your councillor friend #7, The Deep's thorough coverage of Parliamentary debate on these scumpanies, but your councillor's friendship with your MP is immaterial.

MPs represent and serve each and every one of their constituents.
YOU are your MP's constituent, so you also send it all to him/her, just as The Deep shows you.

Upsidedowner

Oh I wasnt trying to say I was an expert - far from it - but the NTK was sent within the required timescales and includes everything that's asked of them in POFA, I've gone through the parts they needed to adhere to/comply with and cross referenced that with the letter they sent me. Have I missed something? - maybe, Ill check again, BUT my question still stands, as yes, I'm here for advice on matters I don't know/or cant find the answers to.

If the NTK is compliant, is the registered keeper then liable in law - end of story - OR is that always a bone of contention in the eyes of the judge if argued (whether the NTK is compliant or not).

Not sure what you mean by 'scumpany as role model for my life' but I note your comments and will send direct to my MP instead. As I said, Ill encourage the other people Ive come across in a similar situation with excel at this new car park to do the same.

Fruitcake

When you compare the NTK with the POFA 2012, you must do it line by line, word by word.

If the POFA says for example, "if after 28 days beginning with the day after the NTK was delivered..." but the NTK says, "if after 29 days ..." but doesn't say when the 29 days began, or says the day after the alleged event, not the day after the NTK was delivered, then it has failed the POFA.
(These are not the actual POFA words, but an example of how the NTK could fail when compared with the POFA.)
You need both documents side by side to do this properly, and take your time.

If there was a NTD, then the information on the NTK must be the same. Be picky.

Umkomaas

If the NTK is compliant, is the registered keeper then liable in law - end of story - OR is that always a bone of contention in the eyes of the judge if argued (whether the NTK is compliant or not).

If it is fully compliant then it opens the door for the PPC to pursue the keeper in the absence of knowing the identity of the driver in order to pursue him/her.

But that's all. There is a host of other ducks the PPC has to have lined up to have a chance of getting a judgment against the keeper, like signage, like landowner authority to operate on the land, like landowner authority to allow them to pursue charges through the courts, like complying with ATA Code of Practice requirements, like complying with other legislation such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015, like being able to argue why Beavis does apply in the particular case.

Then they need full and sensible Particulars of Claim, a Witness Statement which relates accurately to the case and reliable evidence they can produce to the court to back their claim.

So a compliant NtK is only the start of things ........

Upsidedowner

Understood, thanks Fruitcake, I will revisit that and be ruthless.
Thanks Umkomaas - I will address all of those points to attack them.

Coupon-mad

I think Excel's NTKs have a 28 days flaw; they don't say 'beginning with the day after this Notice is served' or anything similar enough. I think they say 'within 28 days of this notice'?

It might seem minor but their version misdescribes the liability and dates, and misleads a consumer into making a transactional decision they would not otherwise have done. i.e. a keeper thinks they have 28 days from the date on the notice and rush to pay, or think they are liable 4 weeks later when they are not. Depending on the dates, the difference can be as much as a week, given Bank Holidays etc.

Bargepole who posts here, won the other day on POFA, against a UKCPM NTK that the Judge felt was 'substantially' compliant but held that was not good enough to meet the statute:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html

...and Schedule 4 is after all, is hardly difficult to copy from. All the PPCs need is a [STRIKE]watch[/STRIKE] wordsmith!

If I am served with court papers I'll put together an equally robust defence from the information I've gathered here. If its ok to post it here for anyone that has the time to give it the once over that would be great. Should I post back on this thread

Absolutely, we will help and we want you to post here and stick around on this thread from start to finish, when you win and claim your costs!

No new thread please.

Upsidedowner

Thankyou Coupon-mad - I will check for that flaw and everything else. Thanks for the link will read that too.

Thanks everyone for the input and advice.
I'll update this thread if they want to see me in court.

Upsidedowner

Sorry ladies/gents, but I have another question.

In the second letter I was sent as registered keeper (after the first 28 days when I didn't name the driver) the letter where they try to say liability has now passed to me.

It states I have to pay within 7 days.

I've cross referenced this with the IPC COP they are supposed to follow and in that it states 'the keeper should be allowed a further 14 days to pay'

How important is this? Or is this just something they would get a slap on the wrist for by the IPC.

Thanks.

KeithP

Upsidedowner wrote: »

How important is this? Or is this just something they would get a slap on the wrist for by the IPC.

Not significant. The IPC won't even slap their wrists.

Upsidedowner

Sorry to be a pest.

I'm being super picky with the Notice to Keeper.
It was Issued (Posted) 16/06/2017

It says I have within 28 days of the Issue date ie: no later than 14/07/2017 to pay £100.
Or within 14 days of the Issue date ie: no later than 30/06/2017 to pay £60.

It later states after the 28 day period (beginning with the day after the issue date on the notice) ....

Then also states that the notice will have been deemed to have been received by me on the second working day after the issue date.

Im confused! Have the specified dates have been worked out correctly? or if they are misleading me (maybe only by a day) but still I understand while they may be largely compliant, a small mistake could be costly for them when relying on POFA.

Can anyone help please?
Specifically when do I start counting the 28 days from according to POFA.

I see POFA states 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to the keeper is given.
So what does POFA consider 'given'? Issued? Posted or Received?