POFA '12 not valid?

Umkomaas

Here we go for starters, others will no doubt chip in as well. 

8. PoFA provides no basis for liability to pass to the RK if the Act's requirements have not been met. 122 days 'late' is eons beyond the timescale set in PoFA. This is particularly potent if the RK was provably not the driver. 

9.  Excel v Wilkinson is particularly useful here. Rather ironic as Conkai are part of the same stable as Excel. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

17.  They are quoting the IPC Code of Practice, yet I'm sure that in 2016, Conkai were BPA AOS members (in fact the sign that they have attached shows them as as such).

Starters for ten. 🙂

Castle

They also don't appear on the current list of IPC AOS Members.

Umkomaas

Castle said:

They also don't appear on the current list of IPC AOS Members.

@Castle. Do you have difficulty opening the IPC AOS page?  It takes absolutely ages to load (significantly longer than any other site I visit).  I notice they no longer show the date of joining!  Also, have you any idea what 'Notifications' mean under the name of a small number of PPCs listed?

Castle

Umkomaas said:

Castle said:

They also don't appear on the current list of IPC AOS Members.

@Castle. Do you have difficulty opening the IPC AOS page?  It takes absolutely ages to load (significantly longer than any other site I visit).  I notice they no longer show the date of joining!  Also, have you any idea what 'Notifications' mean under the name of a small number of PPCs listed?

Yes it's very slow and it has been like that for last year or so: however, I did check using "wayback machine" for December 2015 and it shows the date of joining as 1/09/2014:-
https://web.archive.org/web/20151230020528/http://www.theipc.info/aos-members
(No idea about "Notifications")

Le_Kirk

Umkomaas said:

Castle said:

They also don't appear on the current list of IPC AOS Members.

@Castle. Do you have difficulty opening the IPC AOS page?  It takes absolutely ages to load (significantly longer than any other site I visit).  I notice they no longer show the date of joining!  Also, have you any idea what 'Notifications' mean under the name of a small number of PPCs listed?

Always takes ages for me as well.  First time, I thought I had done something wrong but once you get used to it, just click and go and make a cup of tea!

Lockable

Umkomaas said:

Here we go for starters, others will no doubt chip in as well. 

8. PoFA provides no basis for liability to pass to the RK if the Act's requirements have not been met. 122 days 'late' is eons beyond the timescale set in PoFA. This is particularly potent if the RK was provably not the driver. 

9.  Excel v Wilkinson is particularly useful here. Rather ironic as Conkai are part of the same stable as Excel. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V%20Excel%20v%20Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

17.  They are quoting the IPC Code of Practice, yet I'm sure that in 2016, Conkai were BPA AOS members (in fact the sign that they have attached shows them as as such).

Starters for ten. 🙂

I thought this would be enough on it's own as they can't possibly claim from the keeper citing POFA'12 if they aren't following POFA'12, I said as much in a written submission pointing out the 122 days but they have been allowed to continue. 

Is there a time limit as to when they can apply to DVLA  & would they be vulnerable under data protection rules if they left it too long then knowingly applied?

I'm aware the signage is out of date, they weren't BPA at the time. They were losing popla cases because of this signage back then & I think that's why they ceased to be members.The wording of the signage is the same, however. Does this wording  allow for an angle of attack re: the forming of a contract?
I feel like I will have to present several lines of defence in order to bring this to an end & not just incompetence with POFA

Fruitcake

Is that the particulars of claim, or is it their witness statement? It looks more like the latter to me.

That is a stock image, not a true image of the sign(s) in place at the site on the date of the alleged event.
The sign is forbidding in nature as it does not offer anything to non-permit holders. Without an offer, there can be no acceptance and no contract formed with the driver.

If the scammers were IPC members at the time of the alleged event, then the IPC details should be on all signs. I believe having the BPA roundel is a breach of the DVLA KADOE contract, so complaints should be sent there as well as to the IPC and BPA that the scammers are pursuing charges when they have not displayed details of the ATA to which they purported to belong.

Have you seen them?

Have they included the items listed as CS1, CS2 etcetera? It would be useful for us to see them.

The PoFA has not been amended since it was enacted, so you need to quote the relevant parts (including para 8 (2) (f) where they have failed to comply.

Lockable

Fruitcake said:

Is that the particulars of claim, or is it their witness statement? It looks more like the latter to me.

That is a stock image, not a true image of the sign(s) in place at the site on the date of the alleged event.
The sign is forbidding in nature as it does not offer anything to non-permit holders. Without an offer, there can be no acceptance and no contract formed with the driver.

If the scammers were IPC members at the time of the alleged event, then the IPC details should be on all signs. I believe having the BPA roundel is a breach of the DVLA KADOE contract, so complaints should be sent there as well as to the IPC and BPA that the scammers are pursuing charges when they have not displayed details of the ATA to which they purported to belong.

Have you seen them?

Have they included the items listed as CS1, CS2 etcetera? It would be useful for us to see them.

The PoFA has not been amended since it was enacted, so you need to quote the relevant parts (including para 8 (2) (f) where they have failed to comply.

I knew the signage was a stock photo & didn't think the BPA logo was on there at the time but amazingly the logo is visible on the photos that they have included in their own submission! The paperwork received after the event is all IPC I believe. Fabtastic incompetence, but no surprises there.The wordage on the signs is the same in the stock pic as it was at the time ( I think it's still identical in a different colour)
Is this wording creating a forbidding contract a winner at court? Will the court accept that no contract exists here to be broken?

Fruitcake

Only a judge can say whether the signage is a winning point. Put everything in and make the scammers prove the contrary is true.

Please answer the other questions I asked.

Lockable

Fruitcake said:

Please answer the other questions I asked.

Which one?