Incomplete vrn entered

nosferatu1001

No a Judge deceides if there was a debt or not. There is an outstnaidng invoice, aka parking charge.

Of course the DVLA gives out addresses.

pjr1525_2

Getting more educated every day. Thanks. Still researching. Found some interesting parallels in the forum.

pjr1525_2

Just another idea. If you pay the correct fee, don't overstay and park correctly and they take in and keep the fee, then issue a PCN, aren't they asking you to pay twice for the same product/service? After all it's not a penalty, but a charge. Pay twice for the same service. Surely consumer law doesn't allow this.
Another point.Parking eye v Beavis argument was that the fees and the PCNs jointly pay for the running of a car park then it must follow that if you pay fairly then you have contributed your part to that formula and any PCNs should only go to people who don't pay at all or substantially overstay.

Coupon-mad

Yes, those have both been said before but are minor peripheral points.

System

Interesting read this. I'm having same problem with parking eye. I only put my last 3 digits on the ticket so £100 fine.
I sent them a copy of my ticket to no avail. Popla appeal went against me so now I'm being chased by parking eye for the money. No way I'm paying.

pjr1525_2

Hiya Colin. Go back to the same car park, ( on foot ) sacrifice a pound and get a "test" ticket as I did. Enter an impossible Vrn, e.g. The 2 letters II or qq or zz and see if it issues a ticket as mine did. Retain the ticket to show that the machine issued a ticket for obviously invalid plates "knowing" they breach their contract.
Don't know if it will do any good in the long run but worth trying. Good luck!

Pjr1525

Just received 1st frightener from ppc. "Do not ignore" "situation now serious" "debt recovery agency" I'm sure you are aware of the script. The letter is obviously a stock letter.
7 days to pay. I would appreciate some advice. The letter does not state that the keeper is liable, I have never named the driver. After doing my own research in the forums, I'm sure that my original NTK is not Pofa compliant because of 9.2(f). 28 days have passed since the parking
incident, How long after the parking incident can they re-serve a compliant NTK.
Though I intend to go all the way to court with this matter, I do not want this on the back burner for 6 years.
I would like to send them a letter asking why they are pursuing me as the keeper, then waiting for their obvious reply, Then sending another letter explaining 9.2(f) would this jeopardise any future court case. Best wishes.

Redx

treat is as an LBC and rebut it , if its from PE themselves


HX have 6 years to issue a court claim , they cannot "re-serve" an NTK


either they send an NTK within the timeframe and withg the wording for POFA2012 compliance , or they fail to hold a keeper liable


they could issue an MCOL, but clearly as KEEPER you would argue that the NTK is non-compliant so "dismiss it please your honour"


they cannot have their cake and eat it


if on the other hand you have a letter from a debt colelctor, post #4 of the NEWBIES faq sticky thread tells you what to do and why


ps:- what YOU want is irrelevant , PE are in the driving seat and they decide the timeline , not you (not unless you pay up in full or get a landowner to cancel it)


I have no idea why you think you can control this timeline as a "defendant"

Pjr1525

Many thanks. What is "PE". I don't believe I can control the time line I just thought (maybe naively) that I could "nip this in the bud" by letting them know that because they had not served a pofa compliant NTK, they could not hold me liable for the driver's debt. Regards.

Pjr1525

Just realised, PE is parking eye. I'm involved with HX ppc. My user name got a bit confused when logging on.The full thread is on pjr1525 not Pjr1525. Regards