Has anyone had success with the 14 day rule?

Nice_guy

Hi guys,

I have received a PCN :-(

After reading the forum guides and searching around, I believe I have an appeal on two separate grounds. The first of which is around the 14 day rule (I've just called it that btw!)

I am assuming the PCN I have received is a notice to keeper (NTK). Even though it doesn't explicitly say NTK on the PCN, I have been led to believe the PCN itself is in effect an NTK. Thoughts?

Under Schedule 4 (of PoFA?) paragraphs 8(5) or 9(5) specify the time limits for serving a Notice to Keeper. If this is not complied with then the registered keeper cannot be held to account for the alleged debt of the driver.

A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered either

1. (Where a notice to driver (parking ticket) has been served) Not earlier than 28 days after, nor more than 56 days after, the service of that notice to driver; or

2. (Where no notice to driver has been served (e.g ANPR is used)) Not later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked

I believe I fall under the second point above. APNR was used to issue the PCN (no physical ticket on windscreen), so the PCN issued to me should have been done within 14 days.

The date of the alleged parking offence was the 25/08, the PCN/NTK has an issue date on it of 27/09 and it was a received in the post this week. From date of parking to date of issue is 33 days.

As this time period is well over the 14 days I assuming the PCN/NTK is invalid?

I have also confused myself by potentially misinterpreting the above. Is 'the 14 day rule' a technicality for the PCC (parking charge company) to apply for the registered keepers data from the DVLA? And if the request to the DVLA was made after the 14 day window is it then where the PCN is classed as being invalid?

Any help would be very much appreciated!

Thanks,
Nice_guy

Coupon-mad

You haven't misinterpreted it and of course a keeper wins if it's a BPA firm issuing a non-POFA ANPR PCN like that...how could we/you not succeed at POPLA?!

It's a slam dunk win at POPLA and it's why the NEWBIES thread has the advice it does.

Which PPC? Smart, CEL and Highview cancel as soon as they see the template appeal.

If it's an IPC firm no appeal works (and there is no POPLA) but these are won at court stage, if they try.

Redx

no , you assume wrong, its still valid

its an invoice and the FIRST postal notice is the NTK

POFA2012 is not mandatory so in theory they could send it any time within 6 yeras , its just an invoice , nothing more

but if a PPC fails POFA2012, they will have a much harder job to prove that a keeper is liable for the charge (whereas a driver is always deemed liable , subject to proof)

I suspect you may have confused yourself

so in simple terms, if the PPC wish to use the law called POFA2012 to invoke liability on a keeper that was actually incurred by a driver, using ANPR or handheld cameras or by CCTV, they must get the postal NTK to that KEEPER by day 15 following the incident

if they fail to meet POFA2012, it reverts to a demand for money using contract law only, and in any case is an INVOICE whichever way it goes, so never "invalid" , but harder for them to get money from a keeper if they failed POFA

POFA2012 provides greater protection for a keeper, where a driver has possibly incurred a contravention , but POFA2012 is not mandatory, so some companies dont bother with it

so the NTK invites the keeper to name the driver, as the driver is always deemed culpable for any infraction

a keeper may decline to do so, for various reason,s one is if the NTK arrived after day 15 - ie:- a POFA FAILURE

Nice_guy

Redx wrote: »

no , you assume wrong, its still valid

its an invoice and the FIRST postal notice is the NTK
This is the first postal communication I have received from the PCC. It is entitled Parking Charge Notice. Do you think I am ok to assume this is my NTK then?

POFA2012 is not mandatory so in theory they could send it any time within 6 yeras , its just an invoice , nothing more

but if a PPC fails POFA2012, they will have a much harder job to prove that a keeper is liable for the charge (whereas a driver is always deemed liable , subject to proof)

I suspect you may have confused yourself

so in simple terms, if the PPC wish to use the law called POFA2012 to invoke liability on a keeper that was actually incurred by a driver, using ANPR or handheld cameras or by CCTV, they must get the postal NTK to that KEEPER by day 15 following the incident

So can I read into the paragraph above, that if I do not disclose the driver of the vehicle, the PCC have no option but to chase me and because they haven't issued the NTK to me by the 15th day, the invoice/PCN/NTK is invalid?

if they fail to meet POFA2012, it reverts to a demand for money using contract law only, and in any case is an INVOICE whichever way it goes, so never "invalid" , but harder for them to get money from a keeper if they failed POFA

POFA2012 provides greater protection for a keeper, where a driver has possibly incurred a contravention , but POFA2012 is not mandatory, so some companies dont bother with it

so the NTK invites the keeper to name the driver, as the driver is always deemed culpable for any infraction

a keeper may decline to do so, for various reason,s one is if the NTK arrived after day 15 - ie:- a POFA FAILURE

So in my case the NTK arrived after day 15, which as you say is a POFA failure, which in itself is not a mandatory act to follow by the PCC, but more of best practice?

If I appeal under the grounds of the NTK has been issued after day 15, what is likely to happen then? Assuming the PCC do not accept this, they issue me with the ref to escalate to Popla. Do Popla then make a judgement? and if in my favour the PCC abide by it?

If I have read into what you are saying correctly (forgive me if I have not) the PCC can attempt to enforce the PCN/NTK under contract law in that it is a invoice?

Safe to say I'm confused :-/

May I ask what you would do in my situation?

Coupon-mad

This is all covered in the NEWBIES thread already, please read it first.

I did say a keeper appellant using our template can't lose at POPLA against a non POFA PCN. This is not difficult or new. You do not appeal under special grounds.

Just send the usual blue writing template (no copying it here please, can't stand that)!

A complete cinch to win.

Which PPC?

Nice_guy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You haven't misinterpreted it and of course a keeper wins if it's a BPA firm issuing a non-POFA ANPR PCN like that...how could we/you not succeed at POPLA?!

It's a slam dunk win at POPLA and it's why the NEWBIES thread has the advice it does.

Which PPC? Smart, CEL and Highview cancel as soon as they see the template appeal.

If it's an IPC firm no appeal works (and there is no POPLA) but these are won at court stage, if they try.

I like this reply - gave me more confidence, probably because its what I wanted to hear! lol

The PCC firm is Peye.

Nice_guy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

This is all covered in the NEWBIES thread already, please read it first.

I did say a keeper appellant using our template can't lose at POPLA against a non POFA PCN. This is not difficult or new. You do not appeal under special grounds.

Just send the usual blue writing template (no copying it here please, can't stand that)!

Sorry to ask soo many questions, but what is a 'non POFA PCN'?

Coupon-mad

The PCC firm is Peye.

OK so when you read the NEWBIES thread, also look at the THIRD post of it and read the bit about a P/Eye ''Golden Ticket'' - you are the lucky holder of one! As long as the PCN in your hand is not the 'REMINDER' in the heading, and it's just headed PARKING CHARGE NOTICE but with nothing about the POFA 2012 on the back.

Go and look at the linked image of a Golden Ticket (non POFA) and chuckle to yourself!

Just checking, are you the registered keeper, or is the car leased/company/hired?

Nice_guy

I should add for completeness what I believed my other reason was for grounds to appeal.

The parking charge was actually paid correctly for the time period, but the VRM was entered incorrectly (by 2 letters). I still have the ticket showing the amount paid.

The VRM not being entered correctly is what has produced the PCN/NTK.

This is of course human error, but from what I have read I don't believe the PCN/NTK issued represents a fair pre-estimate of loss for the PCC. In fact I would argue has any loss been incurred as I can prove the parking was paid for and surely their own systems can see there is no APNR trace of the incorrectly entered VRM.

I was then going to state the following case law:

3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). Deputy District Judge Obhi ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Report

In this case Mr Heggie entered the wrong registration number for his vehicle. ParkingEye were able to trace this and confirm that he had paid. However, because they had started court proceedings they refused to drop the claim.

ParkingEye argued that their charge of £100 was a genuine pre-estimate of loss because the whole running costs of the car park needed to be considered.

Judge Obhi ruled that there was actually zero loss incurred.

ParkingEye then tried to argue there was an overstay of four minutes.

Judge Obhi dismissed the claim.

Although ParkingEye claim this was all the defendants fault for not contacting them, it is worth noting that it is their own systems which cause the problem. Systems from other organisations do not allow entry of numbers where a vehicle with that registration was not present.

It is also true that ParkingEye will have had an entry on their system that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonable be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.


But from what you're saying coupon-mad, i'm going too much into it and should just send the template?

Nice_guy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK so when you read the NEWBIES thread, also look at the THIRD post of it and read the bit about a P/Eye ''Golden Ticket'' - you are the lucky holder of one! As long as the PCN in your hand is not the 'REMINDER' in the heading, and it's just headed PARKING CHARGE NOTICE but with nothing about the POFA 2012 on the back.

Go and look at the linked image of a Golden Ticket (non POFA) and chuckle to yourself!

Just checking, are you the registered keeper, or is the car leased/company/hired?

I am indeed the RK.

I shall read the NEWBIES thread again - just to note, I have read it a few times, but its obvious i'm still confused lol

The PCN I have shows no indication of being a reminder and is just headed with PARKING CHARGE NOTICE. No reference to POFA 2012, just reference to POPLA on the back (under appeals and complaints procedure)

Thanks for all the help

Fruitcake

Nice_guy wrote: »

I should add for completeness what I believed my other reason was for grounds to appeal.

The parking charge was actually paid correctly for the time period, but the VRM was entered incorrectly (by 2 letters). I still have the ticket showing the amount paid.

The VRM not being entered correctly is what has produced the PCN/NTK.

This is of course human error, but from what I have read I don't believe the PCN/NTK issued represents a fair pre-estimate of loss for the PCC. In fact I would argue has any loss been incurred as I can prove the parking was paid for and surely their own systems can see there is no APNR trace of the incorrectly entered VRM.

I was then going to state the following case law:

3JD04791 ParkingEye Ltd v Heggie (Barnsley, 13/12/2013). Deputy District Judge Obhi ruled that the amount charged by ParkingEye was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


Report

In this case Mr Heggie entered the wrong registration number for his vehicle. ParkingEye were able to trace this and confirm that he had paid. However, because they had started court proceedings they refused to drop the claim.

ParkingEye argued that their charge of £100 was a genuine pre-estimate of loss because the whole running costs of the car park needed to be considered.

Judge Obhi ruled that there was actually zero loss incurred.

ParkingEye then tried to argue there was an overstay of four minutes.

Judge Obhi dismissed the claim.

Although ParkingEye claim this was all the defendants fault for not contacting them, it is worth noting that it is their own systems which cause the problem. Systems from other organisations do not allow entry of numbers where a vehicle with that registration was not present.

It is also true that ParkingEye will have had an entry on their system that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonable be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration.


But from what you're saying coupon-mad, i'm going too much into it and should just send the template?

Gpeol is a dead duck. You are reading out of date stuff. Read the newbies, send the template. Read the newbies more thoroughly.