Can the RK still name the driver after a lost POPLA appeal?

BrownTrout

beamerguy said:

BrownTrout said:

Lets see what the delightful conor comes back with

Is Conor one of the tails that wags the dog.   

just one of the directors of Car Flow

Beano456

BrownTrout said:

Lets see what the delightful conor comes back with

They're normally very quick with the replies but I think they've gone into ignore mode. Thanks to the BPA contact list I found the email addy for Conor so have forwarded him a copy.

Coupon-mad

As Conor is a bigwig in both Carflow & the BPA, surely it can’t be right that he in his role with the BPA agree and allow the correct interpretation of the pofa to be published, but having a different interpretation of the law in his role at Carflow should you become a victim of his own parking outfit! Seems to be a conflict of interests.

Another bigwig at the BPA, Steve Clark, has told me his interpretation of this law fairly recently and again, it doesn't match the (obviously correct) SCS Law legal opinion that the BPA themselves published the same year (2020) in Parking News. 

So the BPA are saying something, knowing it's not true...

...oh, wait...wasn't that what the BPA did when providing false court claim figures and threats of ''carmageddon, fire and pillage and increased court claims if you don't give us keeper liability'' to the Dept for Transport when the Government were talked into allowing Schedule 4 of the POFA (keeper liability) at the behest of the BPA in 2012?  As discussed and linked here:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5661.msg34080#msg34080

I hear that the BPA are trying again (very hard) to get ANPR back in Local Authority car parks. Wonder what they are saying to the DFT this time?  Maybe it's time for me to copy the approach of Alex the Parking Prankster and send an Open Letter to the DFT explaining why ANPR is abused and exists only to issue PCNs as far as parking firms are concerned, and has no place being sold by certain PPCs to Local Authorities under excuse of 'rich data' benefits.

Beano456

Coupon-mad said:

As Conor is a bigwig in both Carflow & the BPA, surely it can’t be right that he in his role with the BPA agree and allow the correct interpretation of the pofa to be published, but having a different interpretation of the law in his role at Carflow should you become a victim of his own parking outfit! Seems to be a conflict of interests.

Another bigwig at the BPA, Steve Clark, has told me his interpretation of this law fairly recently and again, it doesn't match the (obviously correct) SCS Law legal opinion that the BPA themselves published the same year (2020) in Parking News. 

So the BPA are saying something, knowing it's not true...

...oh, wait...wasn't that what the BPA did when providing false court claim figures and threats of ''carmageddon, fire and pillage and increased court claims if you don't give us keeper liability'' to the Dept for Transport when the Government were talked into allowing Schedule 4 of the POFA (keeper liability) at the behest of the BPA in 2012?  As discussed and linked here:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5661.msg34080#msg34080

I hear that the BPA are trying again (very hard) to get ANPR back in Local Authority car parks. Wonder what they are saying to the DFT this time?  Maybe it's time for me to copy the approach of Alex the Parking Prankster and send an Open Letter to the DFT explaining why ANPR is abused and exists only to issue PCNs as far as parking firms are concerned, and has no place being sold by certain PPCs to Local Authorities under excuse of 'rich data' benefits.

Their argument holds no credibility. The way I see it, if the draftsmen (or whoever's responsible for writing the pofa law) intended that the keeper will automatically become liable after 28 days, they would have made this clear and there would be no need to add para 5(2) to cancel out 1(b). That to me seems obvious that it's intended to stop keepers from naming the driver and disharging liability AFTER court proceedings have started. Until that time tough titties. If they don't want to accept the keeper naming the driver then they should commence proceedings sooner. Hasn't this ever been tested in court before? I don't mind been a test case - bring it on Conor.

Coupon-mad

I like your style.

I really like the BPA publishing stuff in Parking News.  Very useful in lots of ways.

BrownTrout

Conor wont respond
Send him a link to this thread and say 
"Top of the morning to you -  Can I have your comments pls"

BrownTrout

Coupon-mad said:

I like your style - let's see if Conor wants to see the white of your eyes!

I really like the BPA publishing stuff in Parking News.  Very useful in lots of ways.

yes isnt it just

Beano456

They’ve just responded to my previous email (probably as the final day to pay is up today).

The usual cut & paste templated bumf but added the following:

 

As the name and address for service of the driver was not provided within the specified time frame, the registered keeper is now liable for this parking charge.

 

In relation to the claims you have made in your most recent email, the opinion that you have included in your email is not something that we agree with. We have previously taken advice on this issue and are confident that a court would agree that the registered keeper is liable for this parking charge under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

 

This parking charge remains outstanding.

 

Well they may not agree with it but that’s the law sunshine.

BrownTrout

lets see what they do
they dont claim the whole £60 add on charge but £25 and do court claims themselves 

Beano456

Will see how they want to proceed with this.

Thank you for getting back to me.

We appear to be at a stalemate. You say that you have previously taken advice on this issue and are confident of your position. I cannot comment on the advice you have received, other than it is certainly not in line with what the legislators of the PoFA intended, or the legal advice of your own trade organisations published advice from SCS Law, advising the correct legal procedure that BPA members should follow to adhere to Schedule 4 of the PoFA, where a keeper has provided details of the driver before legal proceedings have commenced. A link to the article provided in my previous email.

I have made my position perfectly clear and laid out the legal framework to support this. You have not provided anything to refute what I say, other than the opinion I have put forward is not something that you agree with.

My position remains unchanged.