PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Beanthere2020

Fruitcake said:

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Having named the driver before court action began, the keeper could not be held liable therefore the PPC should have withdrawn the NTKs and cancelled the charges.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.

In a nutshell, yes. Driver has gone back and informed the Landowner the matter is far from closed and quoted the ADR, referencing the fact that they were told the drivers identity, and have been subsequently told of correspondence to their permits team. Asked if the landowner instructs the PPC  as a contractor, or if it is the other way around) ;-) All a game of tennis I guess until the actual court proceedings.  

Coupon-mad

And of course, tracing an address and sending debt letters costs a PPC precisely nothing, as we know:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6280159/debt-recovery-plus-and-trace-advertise-no-win-no-fee-to-parking-firms

So...are the landowners happy that the parking firm is telling them that they have suffered additional costs that are untrue?

Beanthere2020

Coupon-mad said:

And of course, tracing an address and sending debt letters costs a PPC precisely nothing, as we know:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6280159/debt-recovery-plus-and-trace-advertise-no-win-no-fee-to-parking-firms

So...are the landowners happy that the parking firm is telling them that they have suffered additional costs that are untrue?

Seems that the landowner is happy to be told what to do by one of their contractors. 

Beanthere2020

I also forgot to mention that the local MP has also been convinced by the PPC nd that this is now a legal matter they can't intervene. Its not a legal matter until a court issue papers, surely? 

Fruitcake

It is not a legal matter until a court claim has been issued, but that is irrelevant. A PCN can be cancelled right up to the moment a hearing begins. Your MP is either misinformed or incompetent. There is nothing stopping her/him from intervening in order to prevent this escalating.

D_P_Dance

Write to him/her again copied to Sir Greg Knight.

Coupon-mad

Beanthere2020 said:

I also forgot to mention that the local MP has also been convinced by the PPC nd that this is now a legal matter they can't intervene. Its not a legal matter until a court issue papers, surely? 

I'd reply and say, you say that as an MP, you "can't intervene" and think that pre-action letter stage (debt demands) is a ''legal matter''?  It is not.

Your stance is oddly unhelpful and inconsistent with the will of Parliament, given all the MPs who took part in the 2018 debates where this industry was condemned as operating what is often an 'outrageous scam':

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-19/debates/2b90805c-bff8-4707-8bdc-b0bfae5a7ad5/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill(FirstSitting)

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-11-23/debates/005F9F65-57E5-4AD0-B6EC-C26C75A7AAA2/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

All the MPs who spoke had stories to tell about how they had stepped in and helped constituents, written to landowners and those MPs recognised that the stage where rogue and unregulated 'PCN debt collectors' add a false and unrecoverable sum of money (£60 or £70) is a scam rip-off stage and nothing to do with a legal matter or court claim. 

This and the full support in the Lords, ensured that the Act was enacted in 2019 and the new, statutory Code of Practice is being finalised this year by the MHCLG, who also recognise that demands of three figures are too high, and their consultation response includes the Government's decision to set private PCNs at £50 (50% discount) in future:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

A stage where a parking firm is pretending that 'debt recovery' has cost extra money when that is not true (because the firms they use to send the aggressive letters operate on a no-win-no-fee basis) is certainly a point where a timely letter from an MP to the landowners who contracted with this bunch of ex-clampers, will assist me.

Please assist me by writing to the landowner, who need to take responsibility for their rogue parking agents.  This is a subject that both Houses of Parliament unanimously condemned and it not a 'legal matter'.

Beanthere2020

D_P_Dance said:

Write to him/her again copied to Sir Greg Knight.

Sorry, what is the significance of Greg Knight? And is there an email that can be used as a cc?

Thanks 

Le_Kirk

Sir Greg Knight is the MP who started the ball rolling that led to the new Code of Practice that was consulted upon last year and is going through another consultation this Summer (whenever that is).  Check out some of the links in the post by @Coupon-mad, one above the one that @D_P_Dance posted.  You can find all MP's details by asking Auntie Google

Beanthere2020

Le_Kirk said:

Sir Greg Knight is the MP who started the ball rolling that led to the new Code of Practice that was consulted upon last year and is going through another consultation this Summer (whenever that is).  Check out some of the links in the post by @Coupon-mad, one above the one that @D_P_Dance posted.  You can find all MP's details by asking Auntie Google

Response from the office of Greg Knight:

"Thank you for your email.  I am sorry to hear of the difficulties you are having with regard to a PCN.

However, it is a strict parliamentary convention that MP’s do not become involved in corresponding or dealing with issues raised by persons who do not live in the area they represent.  I see from your email that you have already made contact with your own MP.

Sir Greg was successful in piloting his Private Members Bill, which is now an Act, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act through Parliament.  The Act itself mandates the government to introduce a Code of Practice to see that motorists are treated fairly and although the government has been very supportive, they have not yet published the Code mandated by Sir Greg’s  Act of Parliament.  It is expected they will do so later this year.

Until the Code is introduced, however,  the Act is not operative.  When the Code is introduced the scope of it will not be retrospective and so unfair parking practices which have occurred previously will not be covered, but Sir Greg hopes the Bill is successful in stamping out future unreasonable behaviour by rogue parking firms.

If you require any specific action taking or representations made, you should, of course, in accordance with parliamentary protocol, channel these through your own Member of Parliament.  The Citizen’s Advice Bureau may also be able to give you some advice in respect of this matter. Youi may also wish to take legal advice, as suggested."