POPLA appeal for MET Parking Services

tallac

Just for sake of clarity in the following question, let's use some made up names:

• keeper = John
• driver = Dave:

The letter to the land owner needs to be written as if from Dave because Dave's job and place of work is relevant to the reasons given in the letter to have the charge dismissed. Dave is not the keeper of the vehicle and in the letter, they shouldn't admit to being the driver. So in the context of this letter to the land owner, is it okay for them to be "just a passenger"? Is it also okay there is no reference to John in the letter?

From 3rd party point of view: wouldn't it seem odd that Dave is writing a letter to dismiss the charge when they are not the keeper nor driver (according to the letter)? And then saying "we got the PCN"?

And writing the letter as if from John won't work if the land owner requests proof that they work at the referenced place of work.

If that is how it must be written to avoid incrimination then it is not a problem but just wanted to clarify?

Redx

the keeper who received the PCN,  John , should be complaining to the landowner or retailer, not the driver, never reveal the driver and never get the driver to complain either

the keeper says I have received a pcn for when (WE shopped) at your store or when WE paid on your car park etc

YES it could be worded as {DAVE} I was a passenger in the vehicle AB12CDE which has now had a PCN sent to the keeper and I am being asked to contact the landowner

if the driver DAVE wishes to take full responsibility for this, including legal action, the keeper JOHN should name the driver DAVE to the PPC and the driver DAVE can then complain to the landowner or retailer because they are in the dock for it

so if a driver DAVE wishes to complain, ideally they should go the whole hog and admit responsibility and ask the keeper JOHN to name them to the parking company, so that the keeper JOHN extracts themselves using POFA and has no further involvement , leaving it to the driver DAVE to deal with it

so how this is worded is up to those dealing with it

its either the indignant keeper JOHN complaining like Koalacube did in their complaint

OR

the keeper JOHN names the driver DAVE to the PPC and the driver DAVE complains to the premises

but this isnt O level english , nobody is marking the complaint , it only has to make sense, not pass A level english language

Fruitcake

Personally I wouldn't out the driver. The keeper can refer to the driver's job and place of work without naming them.

Coupon-mad

How is this so difficult?  Why doesn't John complain saying that the driver's job and place of work is relevant to the reasons given in the letter to have the charge dismissed (then explain why).

MistyZ

Anyone could have driven Dave to work and then gone off to do their own thing leaving the car where it was.  Fact is, Dave or John or the Archangel Gabriel got to work and nobody needs to know who the driver was.  This is all about designations and legal definitions and whatnot - appealing and complaining etc. need to be done by the Keeper who henceforth sticks to that role.

There may be very specific circumstances here but it looks like someone had to get to work and the car was parked in a space which they had reason to believe was an allocated parking space for employees.  Is that the case?

This isn't a hire car is it?

tallac

Redx said:

the keeper who received the PCN,  John , should be complaining to the landowner or retailer, not the driver, never reveal the driver and never get the driver to complain either

the keeper says I have received a pcn for when (WE shopped) at your store or when WE paid on your car park etc

YES it could be worded as {DAVE} I was a passenger in the vehicle AB12CDE which has now had a PCN sent to the keeper and I am being asked to contact the landowner

if the driver DAVE wishes to take full responsibility for this, including legal action, the keeper JOHN should name the driver DAVE to the PPC and the driver DAVE can then complain to the landowner or retailer because they are in the dock for it

so if a driver DAVE wishes to complain, ideally they should go the whole hog and admit responsibility and ask the keeper JOHN to name them to the parking company, so that the keeper JOHN extracts themselves using POFA and has no further involvement , leaving it to the driver DAVE to deal with it

so how this is worded is up to those dealing with it

its either the indignant keeper JOHN complaining like Koalacube did in their complaint

OR

the keeper JOHN names the driver DAVE to the PPC and the driver DAVE complains to the premises

but this isnt O level english , nobody is marking the complaint , it only has to make sense, not pass A level english language

So is there any issue for the letter to the landowner being written in this way (not exact wording but just to give the idea):

"I am John the keeper of PCN xxxx. At the time, Dave was a passenger of the car. Dave works at the company xxxx and his job is xxxx."

Rest of the letter can use "I" (which is already mentioned is the keeper) or make reference to "Dave" (who was only a passenger). At no point does the letter state who was the driver. So this would be okay, right?

KeithP

So this would be okay, right?

Yes that's right.
 But John is the keeper of a vehicle, not the keeper of a PCN.

Umkomaas

We don't even know who the PPC is yet. If their NtK is PoFA compliant then all the hypothesising and grammatical gymnastics are entirely academic. 

@tallac - which PPC; is their NtK PoFA compliant? Upload it here (both sides) redacted of personal information, but leave all dates showing, if you can't work it out. 

tallac

KeithP said:

So this would be okay, right?

Yes that's right.
 But John is the keeper of a vehicle, not the keeper of a PCN.

lol clearly I wrote to hastily.

tallac

Umkomaas said:

We don't even know who the PPC is yet. If their NtK is PoFA compliant then all the hypothesising and grammatical gymnastics are entirely academic. 

@tallac - which PPC; is their NtK PoFA compliant? Upload it here (both sides) redacted of personal information, but leave all dates showing, if you can't work it out. 

I'm not comfortable sharing the letter, as I've read threads of PPC matching against specific information that may not have seemed private e.g. the charge amount. Imagine if the only infraction they on that day at that single location was one vehicle. So just with the location and date, they could identify exactly what the letter was.

Anyway the company is Met Parking Services. I understand the letter doesn't need to be grammatically correct (grammar is not my concern). My concern is ensuring there's no self incrimination.