Horizon Parking PCN

Fruitcake

RobinHill wrote: »

Thanks for that Fruitcake. Do we know / if there is information detailing whether Horizon NTK's are POFA 2012 compliant?

I don't wish to be rude, but you have the NTK, not me. You need to compare it to the PoFA to determine if it complies or not.

Go through it line by line and compare it with the respective parts of the PoFA.
Para 8 for a NTD followed by NTK.
Para 9 for an ANPR NTK.

Always start by comparing the date of event and date received with the requirements as they are the easiest failures to spot.

You can post redacted copy of the NTK if you wish, but you are the one who needs to understand whether or not it complies.

RobinHill

Hello Fruitcake,

See URLs to NTK attached below.

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/owdya0v0fzhdjsv/20191122.HP_1a.jpg?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/eguij3ixr2hro3o/20191122.HP_2a.jpg?dl=0

Thank you.

Umkomaas

RobinHill wrote: »

Hello Fruitcake,

See URLs to NTK attached below.

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/owdya0v0fzhdjsv/20191122.HP_1a.jpg?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/eguij3ixr2hro3o/20191122.HP_2a.jpg?dl=0

Thank you.

You have enough posts to have linking privileges, no need for hxxps, please edit to https.

Have you used the links I gave you to check the NtK for yourself? What did you find?

Fruitcake

RobinHill wrote: »

Hello Fruitcake,

See URLs to NTK attached below.

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/owdya0v0fzhdjsv/20191122.HP_1a.jpg?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/eguij3ixr2hro3o/20191122.HP_2a.jpg?dl=0

Thank you.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owdya0v0fzhdjsv/20191122.HP_1a.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eguij3ixr2hro3o/20191122.HP_2a.jpg?dl=0

Fruitcake

Fruitcake wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/s/owdya0v0fzhdjsv/20191122.HP_1a.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eguij3ixr2hro3o/20191122.HP_2a.jpg?dl=0

On the back they say if you want to appeal, the name and address of the driver "must" be given. This is an out and out lie. A misrepresentation of an act of parliament.
A complaint to the BPA should be made about this.

As for the rest, it appears to be non PoFA compliant to me.

MistyZ

Fruitcake wrote: »

On the back they say if you want to appeal, the name and address of the driver "must" be given. This is an out and out lie. A misrepresentation of an act of parliament.
A complaint to the BPA should be made about this.

As for the rest, it appears to be non PoFA compliant to me.

I agree with all the above.

RobinHill

Hello again,

Perhaps I am out of my depth here as I am struggling to follow all of this.

I have read though the above links, in particular "POFA 2012 para 9 and specifically, 9(2)f". I have to admit that I find it hard to follow and understand, however the best I can do so, the NTK seems to me to meet the requirements of "POFA 2012"?

I couldn't find (even having read it over several times) where is states "the driver must be named"?

I would be grateful for your further help / direction.

Thank you.

Fruitcake

The NTK does not meet the requirements of the PoFA.

As previously said, go through the NTK line by line, and compare it with the requirements of the PoFA Para 9.

Where the PoFA says it must be given within a certain number of days starting with the day after the alleged event, see if the NTK does. I'll give you a clue. It does.

Then look at the other requirements about warning the keeper.

If the PoFA says the NTK must use certain wording, "warning the keeper that if after x days …"
then you check to see if the NTK has that warning, and says x days.
If there is no warning, or the NTK mentions y days, then it is not compliant.
I'll give you another clue. It doesn't.

Look for the warning. Is it in the NTK?
Look for the number of days quoted in the PoFA. Is it in the NTK?

As for naming the driver, it says this on the back under Contesting this parking charge, paragraph 2.

The PoFA says a scammer may request the driver's details. There is nothing in it, or any other law in the UK that says the driver's details must be given.

KeithP

RobinHill wrote: »

I couldn't find (even having read it over several times) where is states "the driver must be named"?

It's here:

Separate out the important words:

"All appeals ... must include ... the name and address of the driver".

RobinHill

Ok cheers, think I may be making progress on the compliance topic (I hope). Para 9(f) states ...

"(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"

Well it does discuss 28 days, but rather than recovery from the keeper as per 9(f) above, the NTK discusses "recovering the unpaid amount from the driver".

Am I picking up on that bit correctly? ie. non compliant as the 28 days part refers to recovery from the driver rather than keeper?

Again apologies Fruitcake if you're going to need to bang your head against the proverbial, but I still can't see where it says "must" name the driver?

Thank you.