JUDGEMENT OR ORDER RE PRIVATE PARKING TICKET

roythefone

PCN ON WINDOW 23/03/19
NTK SENT 24/04/2019
FINAL REMINDER 23/05/2019
DATES TAKEN FROM DOSSIER

bargepole

roythefone said:

PCN ON WINDOW 23/03/19
NTK SENT 24/04/2019
FINAL REMINDER 23/05/2019
DATES TAKEN FROM DOSSIER

So the NTK was sent 31 days after the NTD.

Which means that they complied with POFA, and the Judge made no error at all.

Appeal application headed for the bin, I think.

roythefone

ok i did post on 14 December ticket issued 23/03/19 ntk sent 24/04

BrownTrout

The question is does the NTK comply with POFA......

nosferatu1001

Yes, but you didn't make it clear there was a notice to driver

it's why you use the correct terms. Not ones you think are right. 

Coupon-mad

Way back in this thread (and I haven't got time to check back 13 pages) I thought I recalled, when you were working on the Witness Statement, that you told us that the NTK arrived on something like day 62 and that the wording of the NTK was non-POFA.   Can you check back to that stage and why we concluded at the time that your NTK was non-POFA?  We must have had a reason.

The dates you've now given are within the right deadline abut you haven't mentioned the wording of the NTK. 

This is your thread so can you find for us what was said earlier please?

I suspect BrownTrout needs to save his money if it turns out this NTK wasn't what we thought it was.

roythefone

payment for the parking charge notice ****** is overdue.
please pay the amount of £70.00 now 
we recently issued parking charge notice (pcn) ***** as this vehicle has breached the terms and conditions at ........... that horizon parking the creditor were authorized to manage on 23 march 2019 .this pcn was issued on the 23/3 2019 at 15.45 and has not been paid.the. reason we issued this pcn to the vehicle is as follows: parking in no parking area.
the terms and conditions of parking on this private land are clearly set out on the signage within the car park. by choosing to park within this carpark,the driver is bound to these terms and conditions and is liable to pay a charge if the terms and conditions are breached.
we have requested your details from the dvla as the registered keeper of the vehicle (through the reasonable cause criteria of pursuing an outstanding parking charge) if you were not the keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked or if the vehicle was stolen prior to the beginning of the period of parking which is the subject of the notice,please let us know. if you were not the driver we ask you to supply the full name and address and current serviceable postal address of the driver so that liability of the parking notice may be transferred to the driver.
the pcn was isssued on 23/03/19 and a prompt payment disounted amount of £40,00 was available if paid within 14 days of issue and to date, full payment has not been received . we now request the amount of £70,00 is paid using one of the payment methods described overleaf. if within 28 days we have not recieved full payment or driver details an additional charge of £10.00 will be incurred ,totaling £80.00 as the charge , after which the case will then be passed to our debt recovery agent which may escalate to court proceedings to recover the amount owed.
PS at no time did i state 62 days or the ntk was non pofa compliant as i do not have a clue what the details of pofa are about.
browntrout said see what you think about wording of ntk

Coupon-mad

What was the date that PCN was sent?

roythefone

sent 24/04/2019

Coupon-mad

Hmmm...so they met the deadline but the wording is non-POFA.   The trouble is, if a lay rep is not allowed to speak for you at this appeal (and the Judge might refuse to grant Rights of Audience to a lay rep to speak for you) I don't think you will be confident enough to say the below information.   


You struggled with both your hearings so far and you mentioned you have a 'key worker' - can we ask if you meet the definition of disability?  If so, that would be one arguable reason for you needing a lay representative to speak for you, by way of providing a 'reasonable adjustment'.  But I am worried the Judge may still refuse and would expect you to explain the below properly and compellingly:

It doesn't have the mandatory wording in bold below, but the Judge decided it met the requirements of the Act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

8(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2) The notice must—

(d) if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i) specified in the notice to keeper, and

(ii) no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f) warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for 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;