Authority to issue NTKs

carcar1

Whilst browsing various threads on this board doing some research, I came across this one which raises an interesting point about who has authority to issue Notices to Keeper.

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5303035

In that case, Debt Recovery Plus Limited t/a Parking Collection Services purported to issue a NTK on behalf of the parking company. Schedule 4 to PoFA enables creditors to recover sums against the registered keeper provided that (amongst other things) “the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)” has given a NTD or NTK (see Para 6(1)). On the face of it, assuming DRP evidences its authority to act on the creditor’s behalf, this entitles DRP to serve a NTK. Accordingly, if within the correct time period, the recipient could use the DRP “appeals” process and then the POPLA appeal process.


However, as the above thread points out, whilst DRP is a BPA Approved Operator, it appears only to be approved for debt recovery and not for other services like ticketing or ANPR etc. So my question is: is DRP in breach of the BPA Code for acting outside the scope of its authorisation by issuing a NTK, or is that not deemed a “ticket”? If DRP is acting outside its BPA authorisation, is this enough to override its right under PoFA to serve a NTK while acting “on behalf of the creditor” and invalidate the NTK?


I ask because I’m helping someone with a PCN received by PCS/DRP acting on behalf of a parking company which is a BPA member. I have read the advice on this board not to engage with DRP when it’s acting as a debt collector; however, if the NTK is valid then I’m of the view that it makes sense to appeal via the route offered in the NTK - with a view to then appealing to POPLA. I don’t see any downside to taking advantage of this route where within the relevant time periods.


I would welcome any thoughts on the above points.

twhitehousescat

PCS sare acting legally as back office , this setup is often done with smaller companies that cannot read or write

Redx

the PARKING COMPANY (PPC) monitor what goes on , and as mentioned above PCS are acting as the back office and issuing any NTK (but not issuing any windscreen tickets)

PCS can do the back office work on behalf of the PPC , which has nothing to do with their debt collection work as DRP/ZENITH

they are acting on a contract with the PPC, so the PPC are the ones authorising the issue of the postal notice by their third party contractor

the PPC are the ones who have the contract to issue tickets, but are using a third party to issue them to keepers

Coupon-mad

if the NTK is valid then I’m of the view that it makes sense to appeal via the route offered in the NTK - with a view to then appealing to POPLA.

Yes it is a NTK and should be appealed by the keeper. Use the NEWBIES template.

PCS issue two types, a Notice to Owner (non POFA) or a NTK ('POFA worded').

Quite often they put the charge as £120, which can be argued as part of a POPLA appeal, to fail to meet the requirements for a NTK under the POFA - Sch4 para 8 - because it does not repeat the parking charge sum from the NTD, which said £100.