PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Beanthere2020

Fruitcake said:

It is a legal requirement to supply All such data held, upon request.
If you know something is being withheld, make a repeat request clearly stating what you know or believe to be missing, and give them seven days to respond. Warn them that you will contact the ICO if they fail to comply, and follow through with the complaint if required.

All done now. Specifically told them of the details the driver submitted to their permits team and the date it was sent through. Given 7 day deadline before this is reported to ICO. 

D_P_Dance

An letter before claim is in effect a frightener, a threat, nothing more.  They can be downloaded for free from the inttternet v

Beanthere2020

PPC DPO has returned an email showing a screenshot of them searching the VRN of the car that was used on the day and not finding it. Damning evidence!

Dooes the driver spell out the VRN of the permitted vehicle to them so they show them the details they hold for them and that vehicle? Just trying to ensure driver isn't ensnaring themselves by asking the PPC to send the details of their permitted car, adding to the potential argument from the PPC? 

Coupon-mad

Not sure I understand the issue - two cars?

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure I understand the issue - two cars?

The driver used a different vehicle on the days in question which the PPC argue wasn't exempt and the reason for the PCNs. Driver knows the PPC were sent their name and the permitted vehicle in an email, so to support the argument that the PPC know this driver is named and intended to be exempt, albeit a different VRN, should the driver insist the PPC show this data by detailing the VRN of the exempt vehicle to obtain the data, or does this add to the PPC argument that vehicle on the PCN wasn't exempt. 

Coupon-mad

Does the driver spell out the VRN of the permitted vehicle to them so they show them the details they hold for them and that vehicle? 

No, you already hold that evidence and it names you as exempt.  They should have cancelled when you contacted them first and that will be part of your defence - unreasonableness and lack of good faith.

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

Does the driver spell out the VRN of the permitted vehicle to them so they show them the details they hold for them and that vehicle? 

No, you already hold that evidence and it names you as exempt.  They should have cancelled when you contacted them first and that will be part of your defence - unreasonableness and lack of good faith.

OK, great. Thanks for clarifying that point. 

Beanthere2020

The PPC have communicated the following via the Shopping Centre Manager. Need to check timelines RE: original RK POPLA appeal, although their ascertion that the motorist 'withdrew' the appeal was wrong, as the POPLA appeal was via RK, and not withdrawn, POPLA decided that the 'driver' had to agree for RK to appeal on their behalf, and POPLA 'withdrew' the appeal.

"I have now had an opportunity to review these cases and I have established the following:

The Parking charge notices were issued to the registered keeper and not the driver of the vehicle, rather than inform us who the driver was in the first instance and provide the driver with the opportunity to inform us of their circumstances or the oversight on their part and attempt to resolve the issue they simply disputed liability. 

Approximately 3 weeks after the unsuccessful appeal the registered keeper wrote to us informing us that they were not the liable party and named the driver of the vehicle.   The driver of the vehicle was then sent a postal PCN.  

A POPLA independent appeal case was then opened on 21/08/19.  This case was then withdrawn by the motorist on 30/10/19.  As our evidence pack was submitted and the case was subsequently withdrawn the independent appeals service did not have an opportunity to adjudicate the case. 

Care Parking allowed a further 28 days for payment to be made prior to issuing a final reminder notice to the driver of the vehicle.  This reminder was ignored. 

In January 2020 we flagged this case for debt recovery and the case was transmitted to Debt Recovery Plus.  They then commenced with their formal collection procedures and sent a series of letters each of which appears to have been ignored. 

Whilst the motorist’s circumstances as detailed below appear to suggest that this was a genuine oversight on the motorist’s part the cases have been ignored for almost 2 years whilst both Care Parking and our debt recovery partners have repeatedly issued correspondence to the motorist.

The motorist has had numerous opportunities to prevent these charges escalating any further and provide evidence to support their claims and their mitigating circumstances and they have chosen not to take this course of action until the charge has escalated to a letter before claim. 

Had the procedures been followed in the first instance and within the original 28 day time period then this matter could have been resolved under the terms of our contract and in line with our own procedures. 

As the driver of the vehicle did not follow these procedures Care Parking have incurred costs for requesting DVLA keeper details, responding to multiple appeals, 2 POPLA cases and sending 6 x notices to the driver/ keeper. In addition to our costs, our debt recovery company have also incurred the costs of sending multiple letters, conducting trace searches of the liable party and also instructing solicitors to pursue the case. 

Whilst we may have looked upon this case more favourably had swift action been taken to rectify the motorist’s oversight, the length of time between issuing the notice and the driver trying to resolve the matter is unacceptable.  Whilst I would like to be able to cancel every PCN as a goodwill gesture, the vast majority of motorists comply with the conditions and those who do not, usually follow the appropriate procedures to allow us to rectify the situation and not allow us or our recovery partners to continue to incur further unnecessary expense. 

I have asked CST Law to place the case on hold until Sunday 11/07/21 to allow the motorist time to consider their position. During this time, they may contact us directly or CST to discuss payment arrangements including a possible discount for payment or payment plan.

Following this date, CST Law will continue with their collection process and ultimately commence court proceedings. 

My apologies that there is nothing more that can be done with this case but the Care Parking team have formal procedures to follow to ensure that all motorists are treated fairly and consistently in relation to these matters.”

So in short, because the PPC have had to carry out some work, they're trying to add spurious amounts and deny the valid employee a cancellation of the PCNs.

I also note "....Approximately 3 weeks after the unsuccessful appeal the registered keeper wrote to us informing us that they were not the liable party and named the driver of the vehicle.   The driver of the vehicle was then sent a postal PCN."

So the PPC were told the driver's name which could have been checked under the exemptions list they hold, but didn't.

 

Fruitcake

All costs are included in the original £100 charge. Much of the work/costs they are claiming is part of their ordinary business running costs, and are included in the original £100, as is a *cough* decent profit.
There are no debt recovery costs to the PPC as debt collectors operate on a no win-no fee basis.

The parking industry is completely unregulated, and adding costs they have not actually incurred is part of their unregulated business model.

The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 permits appeals to be heard for up to one year, but the PPC, their trade association, and the allegedly independent appeals service, PoPLA, have all deliberately ignored this and only allowed an appeal period of 28 days. 
The PPC had every opportunity to offer a dispute hearing for up to one year, but instead transferred this case to a debt collection company, and then subsequently commenced court proceedings.

The PPC were repeatedly informed of the driver's identity, and that the driver had permission to park, yet have deliberately and repeatedly ignored this, deciding instead to bring a vexatious claim. 

Fruitcake

It might be a good idea to remind us all of the events that led up to this as it is an unusual one. I think it is something like this, but it would be better for you to confirm or correct as necessary.

Four NTKs issued over four? days. Driver was permitted to park, but permit was for a different car.
All NTKs appealed as keeper. All rejected.
Four appeals to PoPLA by keeper. Two allowed. During this process, liability was transferred by the keeper to the driver (on advice from C-m). PoPLA suspended two appeals and PPC issued two NTDs. Keeper told by PoPLA that they needed the driver's permission to continue the PoPLA appeals, despite having received NTKs in their own name, and PoPLA codes as keeper.
PoPLA effectively transferred the PoPLA codes to the driver, even though the driver hadn't appealed, nor had they been given their own PoPLA codes.

Having named the driver before court action began, the keeper could not be held liable therefore the PPC should have withdrawn the NTKs and cancelled the charges. They failed to do so, and PoPLA supported them. 

The keeper's right to ADR has been breached because their PoPLA appeals were suspended.

Driver is now being pursued through court.

Landowner believes every word the PPC says.