1st appeal rejected - Elliot v Loake

Annah777

Hi all!

New to this forum and hoping for a little help!

I was sent a notice to keeper on the 9th July for an alleged parking offence. Using the template you provide, I appealed the ntk on the grounds they had not followed POFA regulations and the dates set out for delivery of the ntk as it was delivered 16 days after the event supposedly took place instead of the 15 outlined in POFA.
The day after the appeal I am sent a non-descript reply to my appeal stating they have 28 days to chase me for payment or I can reveal the drivers details to them instead.
I re-iterate my appeal to them as the points raised were not answered in this reply.
Two days later I receive a phone call to tell me that they have followed POFA regulations. When I outline the reasons for dispute to them in the call they ask me to give them an allowance as the offence took place on a weekend and ‘surely I can respect that that’s not a working day’, they also stated on the call that ‘I can assume you were the driver’ to which I replied that they can not assume I was the driver and as my appeal stated they cannot make any assumptions as to who was driving.
The matter is then passed to compliance...I have received an email today rejecting my appeal. They have admitted in the email that the keeper liability provisions set out in POFA are not available to the operator in this instance and admitted that POFA is not available in this instance. However, they are citing Elliot v Loake and that because I have not given them the drivers name, ‘their client concludes it more likely than not that I was the driver’ as the reason for rejection of my appeal.
I have never admitted to being the driver or made any insinuation that I was and have repeatedly told them no assumptions can be made as to who was driving. Long store short, are they within their rights :money:to make this assumption? And do I have grounds to escalate the appeal to the IAS?

Thanks!

Quentin

You really ought to have read up on this fully before accepting a call from a PPC


Don't speak to them again!


Read up on the futility of both appealing to an IPC company (it gets rejected) or going to the IAS (same result!)


You now ignore everything except a court claim


If it comes to that then come back here to the FAQ thread for advoce on how to deal with Court caims


They have 6 years to start legal proceedings against you

Half_way

Im confused, what is this offence that the parking company is alleging to have taken place?

Umkomaas

When I outline the reasons for dispute to them in the call they ask me to give them an allowance as the offence took place on a weekend and ‘surely I can respect that that’s not a working day’,

Just like they offer an 'allowance' for a minor indiscretion on the part of the driver - they provide absolutely nothing. Zero tolerance.

Yet, they are the 'professionals' in all this stuff, yet they still don't understand PoFA. What do non working days have anything to do with the law in this context? DVLA access for keeper data is available 24/7 via automated electronic communication. The fact that the PPC don't wish to work weekends is given no dispensation by PoFA. Tough!

However, they are citing Elliot v Loake and that because I have not given them the drivers name, ‘their client concludes it more likely than not that I was the driver’ as the reason for rejection of my appeal.

A criminal case from way back when, subsequently trashed bu Judges in civil cases who have none of the PPCs' misleading crap about EvL.

And do I have grounds to escalate the appeal to the IAS?

You clearly have not read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, posts #1 and #3 about appealing to the IAS. To save you any effort to do this - don't bother with an IAS appeal. I'll let you research why.

Why are people who come here less than forthcoming as to the identity of the PPC? It's not MI5 stuff, and telling us who the PPC is will provide valuable advice as to the direction the claim might take.

Annah777

They are saying the car was parked on private land without a permit.

Annah777

‘You really ought to have read up on this fully before accepting a call from a PPC‘

I didn’t realise it was the PPC calling me until
I answered the call...

Annah777

The ppc is PCN parking solutions on behalf of complete parking services ltd.

Umkomaas

Annah777 wrote: »

The ppc is PCN parking solutions on behalf of complete parking services ltd.

Relatively new kids on the block. Seemingly incapable of doing the most basic of admin in issuing a NtK, having to have PCN Parking Solutions to do the job for them. Can't see them taking this to a court level. But never underestimate a predator - they have 6 years to pursue a court case.

Annah777

Thanks!

Am I right in thinking they can’t assume I am the driver when I have expressly told them several times they cannot make any assumptions on this?

Coupon-mad

You are right. This has been discussed to death in other cases. Very common.

Why not stick 'Loake' into the forum search & change results box to SHOW POSTS?

Umkomaas

Annah777 wrote: »

Thanks!

Am I right in thinking they can’t assume I am the driver when I have expressly told them several times they cannot make any assumptions on this?

They can assume whatever they want, no one has any control as to what anyone assumes, whether it's CPS, your local vicar, Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump.

You're clutching at irrelevant straws. Stop being panicked by this. A cool, calm head and analysis is the best way to deal with things.