LBC for 2016 PCN

NH95

NPS have replied to my letter with the following:


"Thank you for your response to our Letter Before Claim.

Please note, whilst you claim you were not the driver at the time of the contravention and you have provided details of the driver, in order, for us to pas liability to them, they must accept liability. This information must be provided within the 28 days.

Where the driver does not accept liability, we are entitled to recover the charges from the Registered Keeper, please review Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 s9 ss (e) (ii) & ss(f).

Please contact the office to make payment, failing which, we will issue a Small Claim for recovery."


Any advice on how to move forward?

beamerguy

NH95 wrote: »

NPS have replied to my letter with the following:


"Thank you for your response to our Letter Before Claim.

Please note, whilst you claim you were not the driver at the time of the contravention and you have provided details of the driver, in order, for us to pas liability to them, they must accept liability. This information must be provided within the 28 days.

Where the driver does not accept liability, we are entitled to recover the charges from the Registered Keeper, please review Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 s9 ss (e) (ii) & ss(f).

Please contact the office to make payment, failing which, we will issue a Small Claim for recovery."


Any advice on how to move forward?

Please note, whilst you claim you were not the driver at the time of the contravention and you have provided details of the driver, in order, for us to pas liability to them, they must accept liability. This information must be provided within the 28 days.


So did you say or provide details of the driver ???

One assumes they have added a fake £60 to their claim ?

If so, let's put them right on POFA

"The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4

NH95

I explained I was not the keeper of the vehicle on the date of the alleged event. "therefore you must pursue the keeper, whose details are: BUSINESS ADDRESS"

I identified the keeper, not the driver, as it the vehicle was in possession of the garage at the time.

Also, bingo on the £60 charge!

I'm really not following their reference to POFA, I don't see anything relevant in the section they referenced...

Coupon-mad

Dear Sirs

re: your ref xxxxxxxxxx

I refer to your recent communication about the above matter which is the latest in an established, three year long course of harassment that you continue to wage against myself.

Kindly point me to where in the POFA Schedule 4, it says that when a keeper has correctly transferred liability by providing the name and address of the driver as set out in the Act, that a rogue parking firm can pretend that's not enough and that they can revert to the keeper if the person who was actually in charge of the vehicle doesn't bite?

Clue - it doesn't say that at all.

Be careful with your response, as I warn you now that it will be shown to:

(a) the Information Commissioner's office as part of a complaint that you are processing the registered keeper's data when statute law says you can no longer do so, and

(b) the presiding County Court Judge, should you persist and file a claim.

Further, you may take this as a clear Letter before Claim in its own right, in that I will not hesitate to file £1000 counter claim in damages and compensation for distress for your breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 (using the ICO's response to my complaint as evidence) and your breaches of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (using Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 46 as the relevant case law authority).

I remind you that you are already fully aware that I handed the car over for a service, which was then driven by the garage to the MOT centre, who parked it. I was not in charge of the vehicle at the material time and I have named the keeper on the date of the event. Your company already knew since 2016, or should have known, that I am the wrong party to pursue and that no part of the POFA supports your position.

I refer you to your own Trade Body Code of Practice from 2016, which said this, a direct quote from the POFA itself:

''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''.

The contrary has been proved. Further, I discharged any liability under the POFA when I provided a service address where the keeper at the time of the event (a company which is undoubtedly a legal 'person') can be conveniently be contacted. It is entirely your company's problem that you have failed to take the matter up with the right party after all this time, and you have no lawful excuse to send demands and threats of court to me or in any way process my data.

For the avoidance of doubt, your contact is unwanted, unwarranted and is causing significant distress to myself and my family. It is reprehensible that a parking firm that is an accredited member of the IPC is lying to and misleading consumers about keeper liability and that you have been pursuing me since 2016 based upon that untruth.

You may wish to seek informed legal advice regarding the issues they have, or alternatively you could ask Gladstones of course.

yours sincerely (OR FAITHFULLY IF YOUR START 'Dear Sir/Madam')



YOUR NAME