Civil Enforcement NTK

RobinHill

Hello there,

A friend has received a NTK from Civil Enforcement. I had similar x 2 about 5 years ago and with your help it was dismissed at POPLA. Then November 2019 a similar instance with Horizon Parking where they were sent the reply below, to which they responded cancelling the PCN in full. From reading the notes on here I understand that Civil Enforcement are still not using POFA 2012 hence they can only legally pursue the driver. Would you be happy with the same reply to Civil Enforcement?

Thank you.

Dear Sirs,

I have just received your Notice to Keeper NNNNNNNNNNN for vehicle VRM RRRRRRR.

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors, except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.

Yours faithfully

KeithP

Does the NTK meet POFA requirements to hold the keeper liable or not?

Things have moved on.

Why don't you use the one size fits all, blue text template appeal easily found in the first post of the NEWBIES thread?

Send it unchanged - no additions or alterations needed.

Send it as the keeper.

RobinHill

Cheers KeithP,  A touch confused with your reply? I read the sticky post and it contained the following. Is this not up to date?

"Some firms (e.g. Civil Enforcement, Highview, Smart Parking, CP Plus and some small PPCs) don't even bother with POFA 2012 wording so the keeper is not liable and you must you point that out to POPLA."

Umkomaas

From reading the notes on here I understand that Civil Enforcement are still not using POFA 2012 

The NEWBIES FAQ sticky states that. But things do move on rapidly, so please do check carefully the NtK against the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4). Double check with us the wording (or lack of it) that you believe still fails PoFA. 

RobinHill

Thanks Umkomass. Well it doesn't seem to use correct wording as best as I can see, but I am no expert. Shall I look to upload a redacted copy of the NTK?

KeithP

RobinHill said:

Thanks Umkomass. Well it doesn't seem to use correct wording as best as I can see, but I am no expert. Shall I look to upload a redacted copy of the NTK?

Why bother with that? Why not just send the template?

What are you expecting? Them to say "OK guv, you've got me. PCN cancelled".

RobinHill

KeithP, well yes, as I original posted that is exactly what Horizon did.

RobinHill

From: no-reply [mailto:no-reply@horizonparking.co.uk]
Sent: 06 January 2020 13:50
To: XXXXXXXXXX
Subject: RE: Online Appeal Notification - PCN: NNNNNNNN - VRM: RRRRRRR

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above Parking Charge notice.

I can confirm the Parking Charge Notice has been cancelled in full and no further action will be required regarding this matter.

We can confirm that when the Parking Charge Notice is cancelled, any keeper/driver details are removed from our computer system and that we comply with the requirements of the British Parking Association Code of Practice and the Data Protection Act 2018 in relation to the collection and handling of data.  You can review our privacy policy at https://horizonparking.co.uk/privacy-policy/

Kind Regards,

B Thorogood

KeithP

Do what you think best. Your call.

RobinHill

You said ... What are you expecting? Them to say "OK guv, you've got me. PCN cancelled".
Was I just lucky then with Horizon?

Umkomaas

The difference between Horizon (then) and CEL (now) is that between stroking a cat and stroking a tiger!

It's at POPLA that any PoFA deficiency can be used to advantage.