Parking Charge Notice from CPM - claim dropped

Coupon-mad

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)?

Absolutely NOT, because they will offer you the non-standard IAS which you know all about from the NEWBIES thread post #3. 

DRP letters are fully covered by post #4 of the sticky thread, where I beg people never to post pics of the tedious letters...we have enough here already and we have no time to respond about DRP tedium and the NEWBIES thread says all there is to say about your stage. 

You will be grateful about that when you need us, later!

Come back and read the NEWBIES thread again when you get a court claim. 

Read lots of Gladstones UKCPM Jack Chapman threads in the meantime.

Umkomaas

pould said:

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. 

No, the OP should not ignore this as should it go to court that will result in a judgment in default and a potentially credit-wrecking CCJ.  The PPC will likely argue that in the absence of proof to the contrary they will proceed on the assumption that the keeper was the driver. Although the proof load is on the PPC, if the OP doesn't defend that allegation, the court will consider that it has been accepted. 

Once on the slippery slope of litigation, the OP can not afford to ignore anything (other than silly debt beggar letters!). 

nosferatu1001

OP - youre never under obligation to name the driver, unless a court compels you. 
You as keeper are not liable, because no NtD was served, and the NtK was too late even IF a NtD had been served. 
They dont claim the keeper is liable. Read it carefully. Notice they START using the POFA2012 wording, then state DRIVER. Not Keeper. Shame. UIf theyd said driver, then theyve lied and you could potentially sue them. CRA2015 breach. 

D_P_Dance

You seem to be struggling, please read and re-read the stickies until they become clearer.  It is complicated, but not rocket science.

pould

Umkomaas said:

pould said:

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. 

No, the OP should not ignore this as should it go to court that will result in a judgment in default and a potentially credit-wrecking CCJ.  The PPC will likely argue that in the absence of proof to the contrary they will proceed on the assumption that the keeper was the driver. Although the proof load is on the PPC, if the OP doesn't defend that allegation, the court will consider that it has been accepted. 

Once on the slippery slope of litigation, the OP can not afford to ignore anything (other than silly debt beggar letters!). 

Yes - this is what I meant. Ignore till court and then fight a strong defence.

TheSecretSocialist

nosferatu1001 said:

OP - youre never under obligation to name the driver, unless a court compels you. 
You as keeper are not liable, because no NtD was served, and the NtK was too late even IF a NtD had been served. 
They dont claim the keeper is liable. Read it carefully. Notice they START using the POFA2012 wording, then state DRIVER. Not Keeper. Shame. UIf theyd said driver, then theyve lied and you could potentially sue them. CRA2015 breach. 

I

 I noticed the subtitles of the wording later. Very sneaky of them. Shame they haven't made a mistake though as I was more than willing to take them to court for whatever I could.

Still, it's nice to know they don't have a leg to stand on legally.

TheSecretSocialist

D_P_Dance said:

You seem to be struggling, please read and re-read the stickies until they become clearer.  It is complicated, but not rocket science.

Or
, after reading and rereading the stickies, and still not being entirely certain of exactly where I stand, I could ask a question in this thread for the sake of clarification, and hope that a generous, knowledgeable and informative user, such as all the other posters in this thread, would respond.

D_P_Dance

You could indeed, or you could keep reading them until you understand them.  

pould

D_P_Dance said:

You could indeed, or you could keep reading them until you understand them.  

I don't think that's necessary. I'm sure all of us at some point have asked points of clarification.

TheSecretSocialist

D_P_Dance said:

You could indeed, or you could keep reading them until you understand them.  

forum [ fawr-uh m, fohr-uh m ] 

noun, plural fo·rums, fo·ra [fawr-uh, fohr-uh] .

An assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.

I see, I must have misinterpreted the purpose of this place. Please excuse my ignorance.