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

D_P_Dance

Who gave you such advice?

mar_uk

D_P_Dance said:

Who gave you such advice?

It doesn't matter tbh, I guess this can be used by the operator as well. I have added yours...just trying to condense it.

The operator clearly has no grounds. Either ignoring / making things up / 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 & PCN was attached on my car 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. 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 – “The law does not concern itself with trifles" comes to my mind here.

KeithP

2043 characters.

mar_uk

KeithP said:

2043 characters.

LOL, yes, trying

I took the word PCN was given to me by the driver - Can I actually say that. Instead going for this implying i have discovered it.

The car belongs to me & PCN was attached on MY car windscreen.

The operator clearly has no grounds. Either ignoring / making things up / 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 & PCN was attached on MY car 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. Contract provided is not sufficient & inconclusive.

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 – “The law does not concern itself with trifles" comes to my mind here.

mar_uk

Ok...Think its final now, lol

Is that OK - make sense to submit?

Operator clearly have no grounds. Either ignoring / making things up / not making sense:

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 (s4), 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, operator CONTRADICTING by saying that they were pursuing details of the registered keeper! And MORE on the next para by saying that the appeal was received 'before the registered keeper was notified of the parking offense’.   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 PCN was attached on MY CAR 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 Sch 4.

5. Landowner Authority provided is not sufficient.

6. As to pictures sent, they just stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation and zoomed pictures. Does not address appeal ground 4 at all. Pictures also shows Trolley Bays & EMPTY SPACES, which could have been the reason why the driver parked on that day – ‘The law does not concern itself with trifles’ comes to my mind here.

Coupon-mad

 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.

Like I said before, more important to tell POPLA when it was DEEMED delivered, not when it was.

mar_uk

Coupon-mad said:

 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.

Like I said before, more important to tell POPLA when it was DEEMED delivered, not when it was.

Yes, noted and I was/am struggling here in terms of how to write this to my advantage ..

' 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.'

Is revised below sufficient then -  shall I add anything else?

1. NTK dated Fri 28/08/2020, but POFA states that the NTK was in fact DEEMED delivered (if sent first class), which is Wed 02/09/2020 60th Days (after Sat/Sun/Mon - Bank Holiday), not 56 days.

nosferatu1001

dont capitalise deemed. If you want to add emphasis, use italics
Yuo mus tgive the ref to the part of POFA you are quoting from, and give the full quote. 
State that as it is deemed delivered 2 working days later, this means:
0) Date of alleged incident: GIVE THE DATE
1) Working Day 0 -  NTK issued 28.08.20
2) ...Day 0 - saturday 29.08
3) Day 0 - sunday 30.08
4) Day 0 - bank holiday monday 31.08
5) Day 1 - tuesday 01.09
6) Day 2 - presumed delivered - wednesday 02.09
The time from ... to 02.09.20 is 60 days, well outside of the maximum of 56 days that POFA ... GIVE THE REF ... allows for a postal NtK to be given under para 8... GIVE THE REF
Trreat POPLA as morons. Literally type out, as above, every day so they cannot somehow get their sums "wrong".

mar_uk

nosferatu1001 said:

dont capitalise deemed. If you want to add emphasis, use italics
Yuo mus tgive the ref to the part of POFA you are quoting from, and give the full quote. 
State that as it is deemed delivered 2 working days later, this means:
0) Date of alleged incident: GIVE THE DATE
1) Working Day 0 -  NTK issued 28.08.20
2) ...Day 0 - saturday 29.08
3) Day 0 - sunday 30.08
4) Day 0 - bank holiday monday 31.08
5) Day 1 - tuesday 01.09
6) Day 2 - presumed delivered - wednesday 02.09
The time from ... to 02.09.20 is 60 days, well outside of the maximum of 56 days that POFA ... GIVE THE REF ... allows for a postal NtK to be given under para 8... GIVE THE REF
Trreat POPLA as morons. Literally type out, as above, every day so they cannot somehow get their sums "wrong".

Thanks, I have re-edited and kind of limited by 2000 word limit - submitted as below, thanks everyone for your help..

Operator have no grounds at all.
1. NTK dated Fri 28/08, but as per POFA 2012 [s4, para 8(6)] the NTK presumed delivered on Wed 02/09, 60th Days, well outside of the maximum of 56 days (i.e. working Day 0 - Sat 29th/Sun 30th/Mon 31st Bank Holiday, Day1-Tue 01/09, Day2-Wed 02/09).

2. The NTK is non-compliant. POFA (s4), 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 to the registered keeper (the day the alleged parking event took place). It does not make any sense as I appealed on 29/07! And more, operator CONTRADICTING by saying that they were pursuing details of the registered keeper! And MORE on the next para by saying that the appeal was received '…before the registered keeper was notified of the parking offense…’ 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 PCN was attached on MY CAR 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 Sch 4.

5. As to pictures sent, they just stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation and zoomed pictures. Does not address appeal ground 4 at all. Pictures also shows Trolley Bays & EMPTY SPACES, which could have been the reason why the driver parked on that day – ‘The law does not concern itself with trifles’!

6. Landowner Authority provided not sufficient.

mar_uk

Also, fyi, received below as well from BPA:

Thank you for your patience while we investigated your complaint.

I can confirm that Park Watch have amended their documents so that it is clear that the driver or the keeper can appeal without supplying further information.

As Park Watch responded appropriately, I have closed the case. Thank you for raising this matter to our attention.

Kind regards,
Sofia Ferreira
Compliance Investigations Officer