We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cps midlands late ntk
Rabidmonkey21
Posts: 3 Newbie
Hi guys, received a windscreen private parking fine last year in october and received the ntk a week or two ago (116 days later) and after reading the newbies thread i decided to contact the company explaining that as they had not followed pofa 2012, i had no keeper liability etc. They are bpa approved, and they do not reference pofa 2012 on the letter at all other than “after 28 days an additional fee will be added”. I have not disclosed who was the driver.
They’ve replied back with the following:
We are in receipt of your email concerning pcn XXXX and note the contents. The notice sent to you was a Non Pofa notice and as such allows us up to 6 years in which to obtain settlement. We believe that you were the driver and will proceed along the avenue of a precedent court case that in short deemed that if Appellant accepts being the keeper of the vehicle but makes no admission that he was the driver at the time and provides no evidence as to who was the driver. The Courts dealt with a similar case and held that in the absence of sufficient evidence from the Appellant to the contrary the keeper was assumed to have been the driver at the time of the incident such as the one that arises in this case. In those circumstances that assumption is made in this case.
We are in receipt of your email concerning pcn XXXX and note the contents. The notice sent to you was a Non Pofa notice and as such allows us up to 6 years in which to obtain settlement. We believe that you were the driver and will proceed along the avenue of a precedent court case that in short deemed that if Appellant accepts being the keeper of the vehicle but makes no admission that he was the driver at the time and provides no evidence as to who was the driver. The Courts dealt with a similar case and held that in the absence of sufficient evidence from the Appellant to the contrary the keeper was assumed to have been the driver at the time of the incident such as the one that arises in this case. In those circumstances that assumption is made in this case.
This case therefore remains live and we will therefore be retaining your information and not deleting it as you request in order to further settlement of this case.
As i understand it, this is just a scare tactic but after reading other forums with a similar case from the same company i was hoping for some advice as to whether i should just ignore it completely, or go through the next steps... And yes i am a newbie, hence not realising the “golden ticket” thread might have been helpful.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
As i understand it, this is just a scare tactic but after reading other forums with a similar case from the same company i was hoping for some advice as to whether i should just ignore it completely, or go through the next steps... And yes i am a newbie, hence not realising the “golden ticket” thread might have been helpful.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
0
Comments
-
POFA is not mandatory so they can use the 6 months rule to chase the driver , with the 6 year rule applying for any court claim , so they are correct in their reply
Follow the process outlined in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum2 -
They are presumably taking about the Elliot vs Loake case that has been repeatedly spouted by parking scammers, and equally rubbished by judges up and down the country.
In that instance there was forensic evidence that linked the driver to the keeper in a criminal court case. It does not and cannot apply to a parking scamvoice from an unregulated parking scammer.
CPS Midlands are IPC, not BPA members.
You should complain to the IPC about the scammer's lies that they can reasonably assume the keeper was the driver. Expect a bucketful of whitewash in return.
Previously the advice has been not to appeal to the IAS, but they appear to be very short staffed and a number of recent appeals have been allowed, so I suggest a very careful appeal rebutting every point they have made might be worthwhile.
I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks3 -
If it could have been other drivers, then responding back stating as such would be one path to take.
It then rebuts their presumption which has no basis in law. Their claim is a crock4 -
As mentioned above , CPS are not BPA approved , they are in the IPC , so no Popla
https://theipc.info/aos-members/c
1 -
Sorry, havent seen this anywhere, are you saying theyre able to chase the keeper legitamitely for 6 months?Redx said:POFA is not mandatory so they can use the 6 months rule to chase the driver , with the 6 year rule applying for any court claim , so they are correct in their reply
Follow the process outlined in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum
0 -
I am saying that they have 6 months to obtain keeper details from the DVLA and one month to get it to the keeper , the driver has liability for 6 years under the limitations act 1980 under breach of contractRabidmonkey21 said:
Sorry, havent seen this anywhere, are you saying theyre able to chase the keeper legitamitely for 6 months?Redx said:POFA is not mandatory so they can use the 6 months rule to chase the driver , with the 6 year rule applying for any court claim , so they are correct in their reply
Follow the process outlined in the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum
If they believe that the keeper and driver are the same entity then they can try to assert that fact to a court of law for 6 years
POFA protects a keeper , it does not protect a driver2 -
No, you didnt read that
POFA is not mandatory
POFA lets them make a keeper liable for a drivers alleged transgression
If they dont use POFA, that doesnt stop them chasing the driver
Theyve told you above they are chasing you assuming you are the driver. Theyve made a crap claim saying you are presumed to have been driving. That has zero basis in law. None.2 -
In order for scammers to obtain keeper data from the DVLA, they must have a KADOE contract with the DVLA. (Keeper At Date Of Event).
This contract stipulates that the scammers have 6 months to obtain keeper data. It is completely separate to the PoFA 2012 requirements.
In addition, the scammers (and anyone else in England and Wales) has six years to bring a claim to court.
So, Redx has explained that there are three different time limits, one of which is the PoFA 2012.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards