One Stop Shop, Perry Barr (Park Watch): Not Parked Wholly Within Bay

KeithP

Yes, but that isn't what their PCN says is it?

POFA states that if they don't know the name and address of 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".

Their PCN states that if they don't know the name and address of the driver... "the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed".

mar_uk

KeithP said:

Yes, but that isn't what their PCN says is it?

POFA states that if they don't know the name and address of 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".

Their PCN states that if they don't know the name and address of the driver... "the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed".

Thanks, needed that lil bit extra :-)

I will add this should this go further.

Whilst reading this, saw this:

' A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.'

So the PCN dated on Friday 28th, which was 55 days. Sat Sun Mon (was bank holiday) and say if it was delivered today, which is 59 days, technically, they have failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability, right?

Coupon-mad

Not 'technically'...this stuff is straightforward.

The date is probably why they removed the usual wording about keeper liability because they knew they were too late.

mar_uk

Hi Guys,

Received Park Watch Response today and got  7 days. I am thinking of pasting below bear in mind that I an only do 2000 words – need to shorten it. Also ignored the contract bit - not sure and don't think have enough space.

1. The NTK was received, but not within the time. NTK dated on Friday 28th August 2020, It was received on Tue 01/09/2020 as Monday was bank holiday, which is 55 days.

2. The NTK is also non-compliant as well. POFA 2012 (Schedule 4), paragraph 8 clearly states that if the operator doesn’t know the name and address of 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". But the NTK states completely otherwise: ‘…the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed..". I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not delivered within time and non-compliant.

 3. The Operator claiming to have sent a reminder dated 05/07/2020 to the registered keeper and does not say to where or who as I am the registered keeper did not receive it.  And no evidence is provided here as well. And at the same time, the operator contradicting by saying that they were pursuing details of the registered keeper! And more contradiction on the next paragraph by saying that the appeal was received 'before the registered keeper was notified of the parking offence’.

4. Operator clearly trying to twist my appeal ground 2. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. The car belongs to me, it was attached on MY car windows. The driver has given me the windscreen. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

5. As to pictures sent by the Operator, they are not real evidences, just stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation and zoomed pictures. It does not show any pictures where the car was parked or entrance from a driver's seat as well. Pictures also shows Trolley Bays which could have been the reason why the driver parked the he parked.

Coupon-mad

1. The NTK was eventually received, but not within the time. NTK dated on Friday 28th August 2020, It was received on Tuesday 1st September as Monday was bank holiday which is 59 days.

The POFA says that letter was in fact deemed delivered (if sent first class, which it wasn't) on TUESDAY 2nd.

You can easily cut it down to 2000 characters (NOT WORDS, IT'S FAR LESS THAN YOU THINK!) by chucking out full sentences.  No headings.  Bullet points, no sentences, no 'if, but, the, a, and' - get rid of extra words!

AND - please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

KeithP

mar_uk said:

Hi Guys,

Received Park Watch Response today and got  7 days. I am thinking of pasting below bear in mind that I an only do 2000 words – need to shorten it. 

Yes, you definitely need to shorten it. 

It is 2000 characters, not 2000 words.

Castle

They can't have sent a reminder dated 5th July 2020, because that's the day the alleged parking event took place; and the keeper didn't appeal until the 29th of July.

mar_uk

Final version I think - hard to condense...Can I say the windscreen pnc was given to me by the driver?

The operator clearly have no grounds. Either ignoring and/or making things up or not making sense at all:

1. NTK dated Fri 28/08/2020 was eventually received, but delivered on Tue 01/09/2020 as Mon was bank holiday, which is 59th days, not 56 days as per POFA.

.

2. The NTK is non-compliant. POFA 2012 (Schedule 4), para 8 clearly states that if the operator doesn’t know details of the driver... "the creditor will (…) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid". But the NTK states completely otherwise: ‘…the case will then be passed to our Debt Recovery Agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed..." I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of documents were not delivered within time and non-compliant.

 3. The Operator claiming to have sent a reminder dated 05/07/2020 to the registered keeper (the day the alleged parking event took place). It does not make any sense as I appealed on 29/07/2020! And more, the operator CONTRADICTING themselves by saying that they were pursuing details of the registered keeper! And MORE CONTRADICTION on the next paragraph by saying that the appeal was received 'before the registered keeper was notified of the parking offence’.   And no evidence is provided here as well.

4. Operator clearly trying to twist appeal ground 2. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. The car belongs to me, it was attached on MY car windows. The driver has given me the windscreen PNC. As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right.

5. Contract provided is not sufficient & Inclusive.

6. As to pictures sent, they just stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation and zoomed pictures. Does not show anything conclusive. Pictures also shows Trolley Bays which could have been the reason why the driver parked on that day.

D_P_Dance

Surely this is a waste of court time.  Have you read this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

mar_uk

D_P_Dance said:

Surely this is a waste of court time.  Have you read this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Wanted to use this before but was advised otherwise, will squeeze this in now.