Parking Operator 'Not relying on POFA'

morzine

I have appealed an NTK on the basis of late issue but they have responded with "the charge only has to be issued within 14 days if the operator wishes to rely on POFA. As you can see, there is no reference to POFA in the NTK, therefore the NTK is correct".

However, they are IPC accredited and the Code of Practice refers to compliance with POFA (though interestingly I cannot find reference to timescales for issuing the NTK in the Code). Surely they should therefore be complying with POFA?

I'm not sure how to respond now.

Fruitcake

It matters not what the scammers' ATA CoP says. The timescales are those that can be found in the PoFA 2012.

The scammers don't have to rely on the PoFA, but if they don't, they cannot hold the keeper liable.

Other than complaints to the landowner and your MP about this unregulated scam, you are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers.

morzine

Thanks for your reply - much appreciated.

The newbies thread is an excellent resource but it’s a bit overwhelming if you’re a first timer!

What’s likely to come next? Debt recovery letter?

Fruitcake

morzine wrote: »

Thanks for your reply - much appreciated.

The newbies thread is an excellent resource but it’s a bit overwhelming if you’re a first timer!

What’s likely to come next? Debt recovery letter?

I have no idea what is likely to come next, except lies, deceit, and bullying. You are dealing with a bunch of unregulated scammers so anything is possible.

Debt crawlers are covered in post 4 of the NEWBIES.

Umkomaas

I have appealed an NTK on the basis of late issue

What did you say in that? Can we see a copy please? If the driver was identified in it, PoFA is totally irrelevant.

The_Deep

If they are not relying on PoPLA and do not know who was driving they have a mountain to climb. Have they mentioned Elliot v Loake or AJH films?

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

morzine

What did you say in that? Can we see a copy please? If the driver was identified in it, PoFA is totally irrelevant.

"You issued me with a parking charge notice on ********* but I believe it was unfairly & unlawfully issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

• The notice to keeper is incorrect
The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 – it was not issued within the required timescales."

morzine

Have they mentioned Elliot v Loake or AJH films?

Nope. No mention of that case.

Umkomaas

Yep, that's good. No inadvertent blowing off of toes. Good start.

Unless you can get a landowner cancellation, it will likely take a Judge to cancel this (or 6 years expire). How far it goes will depend largely on which parking operator you are dealing with - please tell us.

Coupon-mad

morzine wrote: »

"You issued me with a parking charge notice on ********* but I believe it was unfairly & unlawfully issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

• The notice to keeper is incorrect
The Notice to Keeper failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 – it was not issued within the required timescales."

That was fine.

If they are not relying on the POFA (which the NEWBIES thread tells you that they do not have to) then they can't hold a registered keeper liable, but will probably still try, with lies about the unrelated criminal case of Elliot v Loake, and/or the civil case about company liability - CPS v AJH films.

Neither of which mean they can hold an individual keeper liable, either!

Tell them to take the matter up with the driver and to stop harassing you.

morzine

This is Kernow Parking Solutions Ltd.

As far as I can see I have three options:

1) Ignore
2) Appeal via POPLA
3) Write to them again as above.