Late NTK response question

EmeraldIvy

I apologise if this question has been answered in another thread, however reading the newbies and numerous threads I have not been able to sufficiently answer my questions. I understand the PPC has failed to follow POFA 2012, however I want to ensure I take the correct steps to successfully execute my appeal.

I received a windscreen notice. In my naivety I followed the MSE guidance and appealed within 14 days, using the template Martin Lewis provides to the the PPC, who is a member of the IPC, which having read through the forums, although not necessary has neither harmed or helped my case; this was ignored. I referred to myself as the keeper of the vehicle, however in the mitigation I referred to the fact that I was parked in a legitimate parking space and provided proof. I declined their demand for the fine and or to provide any contact details.

Over two calendar months later (considerably over the 56 days) I received a letter in the form of 'from a debt collector', which I can only assume is my NTK, which due to the length of time I understand breaches POFA 2012.

My questions are:

• by referring to myself as being legitimately parked, could this by interpreted as being the driver, despite specifically only referring to myself as being the keeper of the vehicle
• should I respond to the PPC again following the late NTK, adding in the phrase used on a seperate thread ' since the NTK is too late to meet keeper liability, they should either cancel or pursue only the driver, who will not be named' in the hope of getting a POPLA referral
• should I include a SAR request within this?
• they have not declined my appeal and are simply ignoring the points I have raised. Can this be a part of my case?

Any advice on this would be much appreciated!

Umkomaas

Once you've appealed a windscreen ticket, especially using the term 'I parked', there was never going to be a NtK - no need for it.

There's no second chance to appeal to the PPC, you're now at debt collector stage - powerless and ignorable (see NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #4).

There was never any prospect of a POPLA appeal - an IPC Operator (I thought you'd read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky?).

Keep any points you could make for a Judge - if it gets that far. Tell us which PPC and we might be able to give you some idea of likelihood.

Come back on this thread if you receive a Letter of Claim or court proceedings via MCOL.

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.

EmeraldIvy

Sorry, I seem to have got confused between the two bodies!

Is it not worth responding again? Or best to wait and wait for court?

I don't understand how they have not breached POFA 2012?

ShakeItOff

Essentially, because you said "I parked", you identified yourself as the driver, so they do not then need to send the NtK, as they can hold the driver liable.

As advice above, not worth responding to, but do keep the correspondence in case you need it at a court stage. You will need to refer to a Letter Before Claim though, if it ever arrives.