Parking Charge Notice from CPM - claim dropped

TheSecretSocialist

Hi all, I am hoping for some guidance/support regarding a PCN issued by CPM for a car that I am the registered owner of.

The PCN was issued by post, to me as the registered keeper, over 70 days (do I need to keep the exact details vague? I'm not sure how much I should divulge in an open forum) after the alleged parking contravention, and a freedom of information request to DVLA shows that the request by CPM to the DVLA for registered keeper details was made nearly 3 months after the alleged incident.  This is well outside the "relevant period" (14 days) stated in the Protection Of Freedoms Act.  In addition the "evidence" provided as part of the PCN was vague and did not prove that any parking infraction had taken place.  I appealed using the companies online appeal process on these grounds, and receipt of the appeal was acknowledged.  I did not receive any notification of the judgment of that appeal though so was unable to take the appeal to the next stage of the process.

I have recently received another letter demanding £100, which I ignored, and have today received a letter from a debt recovery company demanding £160.

I am tempted to demand that the debt recovery company cease debt collection activity until they can prove that I am liable for the charge (which I don't believe they can), but would welcome some expert advice on what the most sensible way forward with this is.

My thanks and appreciation in advance.  

D_P_Dance

The added £60 is unlawful and scupper any subsequent court claim, read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully, when life gets back to normal, it will become impossible for those scammers who are left to continue their vile trade, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Coupon-mad

You can reply to the debt letter if you want and you are right that the POFA cannot be used.    It does look reasonable NOT to completely ignore a private PCN so maybe now is the time to send ONE response about the lack of liability and saying the debt is 'denied and disputed' and as such under CSA and FCA rules, they must revert to UKCPM.

But the NEWBIES thread post #4 clearly tells you not to engage with 'Debt Collector letter-writing waste of time' firms and you are banging your head against a brick wall, so only write ONE response.  Then wait for the LBC and reply to that repeating your position.

You will get a claim from Gladstones anyway.  Keep all letters.  UKCPM will try to say they can assume a keeper was the driver (errrm...no they can't) and that they can issue late NTKs (yes they can, but then only the driver is potentially liable).  Just so you are clear, your defence in the end must NOT be based purely on the POFA.

pould

You have two options. The first is to defend the ticket using the templates given on the Newbies thread. Have a good read and then send off the template appeal including the issues you have raised above. You'll end up with the ticket cancelled OR a fantastic defence in court.
The second option is to go on the offensive. If they made the request to the DVLA outside of the specified time period it's an open and shut infringement of your data protection rights. A tort for that in the small claims court (with a letter before action offering a suitable settlement - say £250) is a win for you. That said, you need to be willing to follow through on any threats.

TheSecretSocialist

Thank you all.

I did submit a templated appeal letter, and had acknowledgment that it had been received within the required time frame but I wasn't informed of the outcome of that appeal.  As a result I wasn't able to raise the appeal to the IPC's Independent Appeals Service.  This seems to go against section 20.1 of the IPC Code of practice (quoted below). Does this give me additional leverage if they take the issue to court?

20.1 If an Internal Appeal is unsuccessful, Operators must notify the appellant, at the same time the appeal is rejected, that they have the right to further appeal to the IAS. Operators must allow Motorists a further 21 days to pay the Parking Charge or to exercise this right of appeal. During this period, Operators must not add on any additional fees for non-payment. 

Regarding the POFA and the late NTK, why is it that they are able to send a late NTK if the POFA states that it must be done in a reasonable time (14 days), and the IPC code of practice states the following:

(q) be given to or served on the Keeper as soon as is reasonably practicable after day 29. from the day the Notice to Driver is given (which is counted as day 1);

It would be seem they are in breach of POFA, data protection requirements and the IPC code of practice.

Is there any further reading regarding the data protection requirements regarding CPM's request for my details from DVLA?  Who is at fault in this situation, if the POFA states 14 days is a "relevant period" the surely over 60 days between alleged incident and a request for registered keeper details is unreasonable and the DVLA should have refused.  I would like to understand what the DVLA's liability is in regard to disclosing my data.   

I am willing to take this as far as I possibly can (without incurring direct financial cost) so if there any templates I can use regarding the data protection infringement, debt collection harassment etc I would be grateful if people would share them. 

pould

The simple answer is that these firms will do anything that they think they can get away with. Hardly anyone every challenges them in court for their illegal actions beyond defending claims. 

Technically the DVLA has a duty of care to you in how it dispenses your data, but in practice unless it knows that a particular firm is abusing the KADOE contract it won't withdraw access. It would be much easier to argue in Court that the parking company acted illegally in requesting your details so late than claiming the DVLA were negligent in allowing them access on a particular occasion. 

Fruitcake

The DVLA wants the PPC's money so sells them keeper data for a few quid. The scammers are allowed to obtain keeper data up to six months after the alleged event.
The scammers are not required to use or rely on the PoFA 2012, and are allowed to obtain keeper data so they can ask them for the driver's identity.

14 days applies to ANPR/MNPR PCNs and 28 to 56 days applies where a NTD was given. In both cases the date of the alleged event is day zero.

Umkomaas

The Notice to Keeper can be sent at any time (up to the 6 months the PPC has available to access DVLA data). But if the PPC misses the critical dates, all they can ask of the registered keeper is for the identification of the driver. That is not a breach of PoFA. However, if in an out of time NtK they imply that the keeper is still liable, that does breach PoFA and should trigger a number of complaints, notably to the DVLA and the relevant ATA. 

pould

Umkomaas said:

The Notice to Keeper can be sent at any time (up to the 6 months the PPC has available to access DVLA data). But if the PPC misses the critical dates, all they can ask of the registered keeper is for the identification of the driver. That is not a breach of PoFA. However, if in an out of time NtK they imply that the keeper is still liable, that does breach PoFA and should trigger a number of complaints, notably to the DVLA and the relevant ATA. 

I've learnt something today (length of time PPC can wait to make a KADOE request). 

So basically the OP can just ignore this as long as he never reveals who drove. 

Fruitcake

Section B5 of the KADOE contract says the scammers have 26 weeks to make the request, but it is worded in a strange way.

B5. Time Limits for Data Requests
B5.1. The Customer may request Data using the KADOE Service relating to events that occurred on or after the Commencement Date of the KADOE Service.
B5.2. The Customer may request Data relating to events that occurred on the day that the request is made, or in the preceding 26 weeks.

TheSecretSocialist

Umkomaas said:

The Notice to Keeper can be sent at any time (up to the 6 months the PPC has available to access DVLA data). But if the PPC misses the critical dates, all they can ask of the registered keeper is for the identification of the driver. That is not a breach of PoFA. However, if in an out of time NtK they imply that the keeper is still liable, that does breach PoFA and should trigger a number of complaints, notably to the DVLA and the relevant ATA. 

Thank you all for your responses, and please pardon my ignorance, but could I clarify a few points so I understand where I sit from a legal perspective?

The alleged parking infraction was not captured by cctv, or by anpr, but by a parking attendant, who took a photo from the rear of the car. In the photo the car appears to be stationary on the side of a road. The original PCN, and all subsequent correspondence, have provided no details or evidence for how long they claim the vehicle was stationary for. In addition no NTD was issued, despite the alleged infraction being captured in person.

As the NtK was issued over 70 days after the alleged incident does this mean that I am under no obligation to identify the driver, and also am not liable for the PCN?

Also, is there any point in me filing a complaint with the IPC regarding their failure to notify me of the result of my appeal (which meant I couldn't appeal to the IOC's IAS)?

I have attached copies of the 2 most recent correspondence.