Questions about Schedule 4 of POFA

Coupon-mad

the PPC is not permitted to obtain registered keeper details from the DVLA on non-relevant land.

That's not correct. 

They can, but only to enquire as to who was driving. And the keeper doesn't have to say.  The PPC is not allowed to send a NTK that suggests that registered keepers can be held liable.

What Councils can't do is run public car parks as if they were private land (different for housing stock, I believe). 

And Councils are banned from operating parking enforcement using ANPR.  That was removed in the Deregulation Act 2015 and refused again a few months ago when the BPA and some major players lobbied the Government to allow Local Authorities to 'benefit from the rich data' and wonderful *  technology. 

They used social distancing as an excuse to lobby for this again, for Council parking enforcement.  

According to an article the BPA published for all to read in Parking News this spring, they were 'disappointed' that the Government responded with a resounding NO.



*flawed and anti-consumer cash-cow

ihatetrump

Thank you very much for your responses.

Can I just clarify then my understanding here?

If a car park is a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority: - defined as:
“traffic authority” means each of the following— (a) the Secretary of State; (b) the Welsh Ministers; (c) Transport for London; (d) the Common Council of the City of London; (e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district; (f) a parish or community council; (g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly. then this is deemed under paragraph 3,  Section 4 of the PoFA 2012 as not being relevant land

If it is not relevant land, then it must be by definition non-relevant land - and therefore, not private and not subject to Section 4 of the PoFA 2012?

Paragraph 9 of Section 4 of PoFA 2012 deals with a valid NTK  as follows:

(2) The notice must— (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

Therefore am I correct in stating that any PPC who operates any car park provided or controlled by a traffic authority (as defined) would not be able to issue a valid NTK? (and therefore presumably the keeper cannot be held liable and the PPC has no where to go if they do not know the identity, name and address of the driver).

 

KeithP

ihatetrump said:

Therefore am I correct in stating that any PPC who operates any car park provided or controlled by a traffic authority (as defined) would not be able to issue a valid NTK? (and therefore presumably the keeper cannot be held liable and the PPC has no where to go if they do not know the identity, name and address of the driver). 

The first part is incorrect.

I.e. The PPC can issue a valid NtK. The legitimate purpose of that NtK is to ask the keeper for the driver's name and address. 

Your text in parentheses is absolutely right. 

Coupon-mad

There is official guidance on Schedule 4 (used to be called section 56 of the POFA Bill) that explains about relevant land. 

Google guidance section 56 POFA.

ihatetrump

Thanks @KeithP

Not sure I fully understand your first comment - how can the NTK be valid under Paragraph 9 if the notice does not specify the relevant land?

Anyway, the driver was not named and no address given, but:

On the basis of @Coupon-mad 's prior comment (22/06/21 9:30pm) here is the extract from the NTK:




Presumably the penultimate paragraph is 'not allowed' as they do not have the right to recover from the registered keeper. - how is that addressed in my WS?

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

@KeithP didn’t say it was valid under para 9. He said a NTK that is non POFA is still valid.

And it is; to hold a driver liable they are allowed to ask the keeper who that driver was.  They just can’t say the driver is liable.

ihatetrump

Thank you for your response.

I don't want to appear stupid here (but then maybe I am ! )

To follow on - if the PPC issued an NTK (which they did) but because the Car Park was non-relevant land it is non PoFA (still to be proven but 95% sure it is - will know when Freedom of Information request from the Council is complete)), I wasn't the driver and have not named the driver, is there now any basis under which the keeper can be held liable?

KeithP

ihatetrump said:

Thank you for your response.

I don't want to appear stupid here (but then maybe I am ! )

To follow on - if the PPC issued an NTK (which they did) but because the Car Park was non-relevant land it is non PoFA (still to be proven but 95% sure it is - will know when Freedom of Information request from the Council is complete)), I wasn't the driver and have not named the driver, is there now any basis under which the keeper can be held liable?

No.

But don't think that will stop them hounding the keeper to pay.

That unwarranted harassment will continue - probably until just before any court hearing.

KeithP

ihatetrump said:

In my defence statement I used the template and left item 16 with no alterations. To date, I haven't pursued Landowner authority, mainly because initially I thought the PPC was the landowner and now I believe they are not and it is in fact Milton Keynes Council. 

Where exactly did this alleged parking event take place - Willen Lake?

ihatetrump

No - it was at Elder Gate - the Bus Station Car Park - the Bus Station is owned by MK Council through MKDP.