PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Quentin

Those links dead

Cornerhog82

Quentin wrote: »

Those links dead

Please try this link https://gofile.io/?c=PC9OAH

Quentin

That takes you to a download.

No thanks!!

Cornerhog82

Quentin wrote: »

That takes you to a download.

No thanks!!

Hoping this works without a download required https://docdro.id/adKINUe

KeithP

My browser tells me this when I click your link:

Hint: I used Imgur.com to host that image.

Cornerhog82

KeithP wrote: »

My browser tells me this when I click your link:

Hint: I used Imgur.com to host that image.

:shocked: clearly not having a great deal of luck sharing this.

Cornerhog82

Here we go https://imgur.com/a/t00S6S4

Cornerhog82

Hopefully the link to the PCN (redacted) is now working

I have drafted an additional part to the POPLA appeal to challenge whether Care Parking have met POFA2012 requirements.

Please see below. Your feedback would be appreciated.

Care Parking have failed to issue a Parking Charge Notice that meets all the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.

Paragraph 2 (1) (b)
“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

Care Parking have not been able to provide sufficient evidence that the vehicle was parked on the site in question or in fact that it was occupied by the registered keeper. Images of a vehicle moving in front of a camera does not constitute a period of parking and therefore should not be considered as proof that the vehicle overstayed as suggested in the Parking Charge Notice.

Paragraph 9 (2) (e) of POFA2012 Schedule 4 clearly states:
The notice must –
state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

Nowhere on the Parking Charge Notice issued by Care Parking on XXXXX is there a clear invitation to the keeper to either of the above points (i) or (ii).
Firstly, the Parking Charge Notice states:
“A prompt payment discounted amount of £60.00 applies if this Parking Charge Notice is paid within 14 days of issue. If you choose to not pay at this amount, the full value of £100.00 will be due. Registered Keeper details of this vehicle have been requested from the DVLA through the reasonable cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding Parking Charge Notice.”
This is NOT an invite to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. Care Parking are telling the registered keeper that the £60.00 charge “applies” rising to £100 if not paid within 14 days. This very much appears strategically placed within the Parking Charge Notice as to be presented before the statement ‘telling’ the registered keeper to provide current name and address of the occupant of the vehicle on the day in question. I would argue this constitutes a threatening tone to the document, where the required POFA2012 compliant invite from Care Parking should have been used.

Care Parking state in the Parking Charge Notice:

“As we do not know the driver’s name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them.”
I am keen to emphasise specifically, their use of the wording ‘you should tell us.’ This statement is most certainly NOT an invitation (as stipulated it should be in the POFA2012, paragraph 9 2(e) to the keeper to volunteer this information. I would in fact argue that this is both a distinctly leading and coercive statement from Care Parking in order for them to obtain information in relation to the Parking Charge and most certainly not meeting the compliance of POFA2012 schedule 4, paragraph 9 (2)(e).
Furthermore, Paragraph 9 (2) (h) of POFA2012 states
The notice must -
“identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.”
Care Parking have not identified who the creditor is, anywhere in the Parking Charge Notice issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle. This is a clear non-compliance in relation to the relevant clause within POFA2012 schedule 4, paragraph 9. Although Care Parking have provided details of how to pay, it has not been stated who the creditor is. In fact they certainly have not identified themselves as the creditor and therefore who the payee would in fact be paying should they agree to pay the charge.

Cornerhog82

Quentin wrote: »

That takes you to a download.

No thanks!!

Sorry about that! Accessible link now provided with additional POFA non-compliance drafted response

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

OK here's a sneaky tactic, if you don't mind naming the driver after all:

The keeper writes NOW by email and post to Care Parking, telling them that they are transferring liability because the car was being used by a relative and their name and address is:

blah blah (including their postal address)

As such, any potential liability has been transferred under the POFA before any action has commenced and they have no case for action against the keeper, as confirmed in the BPA CoP where it states that where the driver's name & address are known, the claim can only be against that driver.

Then wait a week (assuming the POPLA code is not about to expire) and bung in the POPLA appeal, with the first point being that the driver has already been named, and attach proof (including proof of posting, the Certificate of posting the keeper gets from the PO). And proof of emailing the same ('sent' email item screenshot from your 'sent' box).

Then quote the POFA to prove that the keeper CAN'T be held liable.

I am hoping this will put them between a rock and a hard place and if they offer 'no contest' then the POPLA rules require that the PCN has to be cancelled.

Are the parties up for that? Otherwise the POPLA appeal looks shaky on winning points that POPLA would agree with, IMHO.

Bearing in mind the uploaded PCN for reference https://imgur.com/a/t00S6S4 and the addition of potential POFA fails on the part of the operator in my recent post #69, do you think transferring liability at this stage is still the best option?