PCN where permit not transferred to vehicle

Cornerhog82

Hi, can anyone give me any feedback on the above please? Thanks.

Cornerhog82

Only two appeal outcomes (both rejected) received from PPC for 4 appealed PCNs. POPLA codes provided for the two received.
Where does the RK stand on those that have not received an outcome response?

Coupon-mad

Cornerhog82 wrote: »

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?

Yes my advice stands and that PCN is a POFA one. Nothing major missing.

A PPC has 35 days to respond to an appeal.

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes my advice stands and that PCN is a POFA one. Nothing major missing.

A PPC has 35 days to respond to an appeal.

the two popla codes expire 21st August - PPC say they will not enter into any further correspondence so where does that leave RK?

pepipoo.com suggest could argue the invitation to keeper not being there, not identified as creditor.

also, could para 11 of POFA be appealed?

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/keeper-liability-paragraph-11/

Cornerhog82

Panicking now

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes my advice stands and that PCN is a POFA one. Nothing major missing.

A PPC has 35 days to respond to an appeal.

POPLA expires 21/08/19, so send tranfer of liability to PPC today and then submit POPLA on Wednesday?

Cornerhog82

I am seriously getting confused here now:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=129343&st=0&p=1508898&#entry1508898

Coupon-mad

I see what pepipoo are saying but the 3 points mentioned about that PCN are very minor and MOST importantly IMHO have no chance of winning at POPLA.

Up to you. Pepipoo are not wrong to point out those 3 minor flaws but they will just not wash with POPLA IMHO and I'm not sure what will win it for you. Not seeing any clear winning point unless you have great evidence photos of lack of signs, etc.

However you could do both the POPLA appeal and my 'sneaky tactic' afterwards if it loses.

Cornerhog82

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I see what pepipoo are saying but the 3 points mentioned about that PCN are very minor and MOST importantly IMHO have no chance of winning at POPLA.

Up to you. Pepipoo are not wrong to point out those 3 minor flaws but they will just not wash with POPLA IMHO and I'm not sure what will win it for you. Not seeing any clear winning point unless you have great evidence photos of lack of signs, etc.

However you could do both the POPLA appeal and my 'sneaky tactic' afterwards if it loses.

Thanks. Due to timescales RK has submitted via email transfer of liability to relative - to follow up with posted documents and POPLA appeal stating PPC do know the identity of the driver. Hoping this has better chance than the minimal points in the PCN.

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.

Coupon-mad - Draft below on the first point in line with your advice...

1. No case for action against the keeper due to contravention of POFA 2012 Paragraph 4

The opoerator has no right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In
line with the BPA Code of Practice, the claim can only be against the driver where the name
and address of the driver is known to the operator. As such the PCN against the keeper of the
vehicle cannot be upheld on these grounds.

The name and address of the driver has already been issued to the parking operator, with
details having been emailed and sent via recorded post to the operator – please see images
below. These include a screenshot of the sent email message, proof of postage of the copy documents and signed proof of delivery

Under POFA 2012, paragraph 4 with regards to the ‘Right to claim unpaid parking charges from
keeper of vehicle’, it states:
(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the
vehicle.
(2) The right under this paragraph applies ONLY IF—
(a)the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met; and
(b)the vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the
unpaid parking charges relate.
I thereby refer to paragraph 5 under the ‘Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph
4’
(1) The first condition is that the creditor—
(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid
parking charges; but
(b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor
does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.
If, the operator is indeed the ‘creditor’ they cannot uphold their right to claim unpaid parking
charges from the keeper of the vehicle due to the fact that there is clear evidence to show that
they do in fact know, both the name and address of the driver, as evidenced in the provided images, and as such are in contravention of the strict conditions of paragraph 4 of
POFA2012.