4 year old PCN and a discrepancy?

Coupon-mad

Do you mean they have been unable to show you the NTK that their liability notice appears to say that the NTK in question was dated 2014 - TWO YEARS BEFORE THE PARKING EVENT?!

It almost sounds like they have forged a liability notice, editing a 2014 one and putting your name and details on it... can you show us that document?

nosferatu1001

SHOW US YOUR DEFENCE! Seriously! WE've asked more than once and you have it!
The NtK, in law, is the first notice they send
If they are stating the first notivce they sent was prior to the material date, then obviously you point out that the documentation they are utterly reliant upon must be defective - there is no other possibility. 

Anoonymouse

Coupon-mad said:

Do you mean they have been unable to show you the NTK that their liability notice appears to say that the NTK in question was dated 2014 - TWO YEARS BEFORE THE PARKING EVENT?!

It almost sounds like they have forged a liability notice, editing a 2014 one and putting your name and details on it... can you show us that document?

I will upload the PCN and NoKL.

Anoonymouse

Hope these are ok,I removed personal info and screengrabbed,most of what is missing is just general guff on all their letters.

Coupon-mad

Claimant is Parking Awareness.

Does the NTK have all the words from para 9 of the POFA about warning the keeper that they will be liable?  Can you show us front and back?

Anoonymouse

Coupon-mad said:

Claimant is Parking Awareness.

Does the NTK have all the words from para 9 of the POFA about warning the keeper that they will be liable?  Can you show us front and back?

Here is rest to the front text of the PCN,the rear just has payment details,appeals,complaints info etc.
 Thanks

Coupon-mad

''28 days from the date above'' is not correct - compare that to what para 9 says in the POFA.. 

It's a pedantic point that a Judge may or may not agree with - IMHO they should because what's the point of prescribed warnings and deadlines in a law like this if they can be misstated and that's OK?!

Anoonymouse

Coupon-mad said:

''28 days from the date above'' is not correct - compare that to what para 9 says in the POFA.. 

It's a pedantic point that a Judge may or may not agree with - IMHO they should because what's the point of prescribed warnings and deadlines in a law like this if they can be misstated and that's OK?!

On the topic of being pedantic,if they are claiming the NOKL is what they class as NTK then its out of time according to PoFA as its outside 14 days 

• NOT LATER than 14 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver  was not issued).
  This is what I requested in my email "Regards this claim I was sent copies of documents regarding it but dont appear to have the notice to keeper,please email that to me on this address."
  "Good afternoon Mr XX

   

  Thank you for your email

  We note that the ‘Notification of Keeper Liability’ was previously sent to you in my colleagues email dated 13/01/2021. However, I have attached a copy of the same above. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch. "

  
  

Coupon-mad

No, the PCN is the NTK.  It's always the first letter. 

A NoKL is nothing important at all.  Not a statutory document, not needed.

Anoonymouse

Coupon-mad said:

No, the PCN is the NTK.  It's always the first letter. 

A NoKL is nothing important at all.  Not a statutory document, not needed.

YesI know this but clealry they dont,was my point.