NCP PCN now at Debt Collection Stage

beamerguy

I have contacted the landowner (shopping centre) whose bottom line is that NCP deal with all parking issues and that was the end of it - but I will try again tomorrow.

Invite the landowner to be a witness in court if they cannot train the scammer to behave properly.
Ask what lead time they need to appear in front of a judge. Tell them they are responsible for the actions of the parking company they employed

D_P_Dance

Also mention that, if the scammer takes you to court, you might, just might,  lodge a counter counter claim  naming aforesaid landowner jointly as a co-defendant.  Inquire of him/her their preference for apples.

Lumphammer2

Thanks everyone.  I will keep this as brief as I can not to waste anyone's time.

I have searched, but what I don't understand is, how I can say that the NTK has not complied with POFA? - when as far as I can see, it has.  The only thing I can see is that they have not been specific as to how I failed to pay..'Parked without payment of the parking charge...'

I have read DoT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 POFA 2012 - which just seems to put the power in the hands of the car park if they serve notice correctly.  I haven't found any official source which says that the keeper is not liable to the charge if he does not identify the driver.

Also, how  would you approach the landowner to try and get the PCN cancelled (on the basis that the machine was out of
order?) without suggesting who the driver was?!

Thanks!

Le_Kirk

Talking to the landowner, you could use the royal WE, rather than I.  You could have been a passenger in the car not the driver. 

KeithP

Lumphammer2 said:

I have read DoT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 POFA 2012 - which just seems to put the power in the hands of the car park if they serve notice correctly.

The important word in there is - if. And it is a big if.

Lumphammer2 said:

I haven't found any official source which says that the keeper is not liable to the charge if he does not identify the driver.

I don't know what you are looking for, but clearly if the Claimant has not followed the POFA rules such that they are able to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper, then the keeper is not liable.
It follows from that, that if the keeper doesn't identify the driver, then the PPC has no-one to chase.

Of course that will not stop the PPC hounding the keeper to pay. They rely on the knowledge of the keeper being such that the keeper feels he is responsible, whether he is or not.

Redx

The keeper is liable if the PPC complied with the law named POFA , POFA makes the Keeper liable if all relevant paragraphs are met

A Keeper is not liable if POFA has not been complied with , the caveat being if a keeper was the driver and the PPC can prove it , or convince a judge so they are more sure than not

Th PPC will say that the keeper was the driver until proved otherwise , even asking them in court , were you the driver ? Yes or no ? In front of the judge

The royal WE works wephem complaining to a landowner , so being economical with the truth can work , you do not need to be specific to a landowner , no matter if you were an occupant of the vehicle or not , it's not about telling lies , it's using words that are ambiguous , none specific

Coupon-mad

Have you compared the wording of the NTK to the POFA?  NCP do not usually incude the 9(2)f words.

  I haven't found any official source which says that the keeper is not liable to the charge if he does not identify the driver.

That's because the keeper IS potentially liable if the driver is not named/known but ONLY if the PPC has fully complied with the POFA.  And we are saying that NCP do not usually.

D_P_Dance

..,   but what I don't understand is, how I can say that the NTK has not complied with POFA?

First you read POFA, then you read the NTK, and see if they are both saying the same thing.  

Lumphammer2

I believe that NCP have complied with 9(2) f...transcripts below of POFA and the NTK.

9(2)f....

(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;

NCP NTK

Please be warned: 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 Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full, and (ii) we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, so much of that Parking Charge as remains unpaid.

Assuming that NTK was served correctly, the only argument I can think of is that the machine was out of order and insufficient signage.  I have taken external photos of the signage, and the terms and conditions are so small as to be illegible, but the car park has been closed since lockdown so there would probably be other signs near the ticket machine.

pould

Can I suggest one more thing please? Your opening post is full of "I" statements. Please edit it to refer only to "the Driver" and "the Keeper". In this way you don't give a parking company any evidence as to who was the driver of the vehicle (and yes, some parking companies are desparate enough to trawl this and other forums to look for evidence like this).