IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.

Excel Parking Charge Notice (Iceland)

2

Replies

  • RedxRedx Forumite
    37.7K Posts
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    If I am in Iceland we are usually on site over an hour from start to finish , or any major supermarket come to think about it. 😁😁
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
  • Umkomaas said:
    The PoFA warning is not of the required standard. Please compare it word for word with PoFA para 9(2)(f). Learn the difference between 'issued' and 'given' because if you are to rely on 'no keeper liability' as one of your defence points, you may have to explain it in detail to a Judge, there aren't many who are fully au fait with the details of PoFA from what we've seen. 
    secondly, the ANPR is absolutely woeful, it must have been dark because you cannot see anything whatsoever, bar the number plate which although I have redacted it, is very clear.
    To the contrary, I would say that the ANPR has done exactly what it said on the tin when Excel purchased it. NPR = number plate recognition. It has done that perfectly. It is not 'vehicle recognition', nor is it 'facial recognition', that's why you see precious little of anything else when ANPR photos are taken in the dark - and 'in the dark' is the clue for you to turn your attention away from the cameras and to the signs. 

    If it was dark at the time of entering the car park, were the signs around the car park individually illuminated?  Do you have your own photos of them, taken in similar light conditions, without the use of flash, so you have images for your evidence as near as possible to how they and their details might have been visible to the driver on the day?
    That is very helpful, thank you.  I was going to respond saying:
    Dear Sirs
    Thank you for your letter.  I am unable to identify the driver of the vehicle from the images provided.  Please provide me with all images you hold so that I may identify the driver of the vehicle.
    I will not be paying the fine if you attempt to transfer liability to me as the Registered Keeper.  The warning given in the bottom left of the page regarding transfer of liability does not comply with Section 9(2)(f) Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  Specifically, the Section requires you to “warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given…”
    The warning provided in the letter states:  “Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue date of this notice…”
    This does not comply with the legislation.  The “Issue Date” as you refer to it, appears to be the 4th February 2020, the date you apparently posted the letter.
    Section (6)A to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states: “notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”
    As such the 28 day period, as provided by the legislation, began to run from Monday 8 February 2021, that being the second working day after the posting of your letter, and not Friday 5 February, the day after the “Issue date” of your notice.
    As the letter does not comply with the statutory regime I would politely urge you, unless you are able to identify the driver, to confirm by return that the matter is concluded.


    What do you think?  Many thanks 
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    28.4K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The warning provided in the letter states:  “Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue date of this notice…”
    This does not comply with the legislation.  The “Issue Date” as you refer to it, appears to be the 4th February 2020, the date you apparently posted the letter.
    Section (6)A to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states: “notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”
    As such the 28 day period, as provided by the legislation, began to run from Monday 8 February 2021, that being the second working day after the posting of your letter, and not Friday 5 February, the day after the “Issue date” of your notice.

    I think I would replace all of that with...
    "Your Notice to Keeper does not meet these requirements".

    Why tell them exactly what they need to change to make the next ones POFA compliant?

    It is good to see that you have an excellent understanding of these requirements. That will be very useful should this ever get to court, 
  • KeithP said:
    The warning provided in the letter states:  “Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue date of this notice…”
    This does not comply with the legislation.  The “Issue Date” as you refer to it, appears to be the 4th February 2020, the date you apparently posted the letter.
    Section (6)A to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states: “notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.”
    As such the 28 day period, as provided by the legislation, began to run from Monday 8 February 2021, that being the second working day after the posting of your letter, and not Friday 5 February, the day after the “Issue date” of your notice.

    I think I would replace all of that with...
    "Your Notice to Keeper does not meet these requirements".

    Why tell them exactly what they need to change to make the next ones POFA compliant?

    It is good to see that you have an excellent understanding of these requirements. That will be very useful should this ever get to court, 
    I suppose I just want them to drop it rather than back and forth with them?....
  • FruitcakeFruitcake Forumite
    52.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    It is not a fine, so don't use that word.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • Umkomaas said:
    Go with @KeithP's advice. Whatever you put won't stop them in their tracks - only a cheque does that.  They will give you some crap about the presumption that the keeper was the driver. Keep this for the Judge, don't explain it to Excel. Please listen to the advice. 
    OK, I've gone with your suggestion.  I did get one cancelled before with a different company when I explained there was a deficiency in their letter, so let's see!  Thanks for your help everyone. 
  • So I have now reached the IAS stage and have set out what I stated above.  I have had this convoluted response as below.  I don't believe there is any conflation, has anyone had a similar response?


    1. We apologise for the clerical error in our appeal correspondence and can confirm that we are holding the motorist liable as keeper of the vehicle under the keeper liability provisions of PoFA 2012 as no named driver has been nominated to us.

    2. The motorist's challenge to the validity of the NTK in relation to PoFA 2012 is flawed for the reasons stated below.

    3. The appellant'is implying that the NTK is incorrect pursuant to the following section of PoFA 2012:9(2)(f) The NTK must warn the keeper that if after 28 days beginning the day after that on which the notice is given we do not know the name of a driver we will have the right to recover from the keeper the outstanding sum of the charge. They are arguing under Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) that the date for service is four business days after the date of posting. They ignore that fact that this is a statutory legislation and makes no reference to CPR procedures so the service is as written in PoFa. The period identified at 9(2)(f) is 28 days starting the day after the date the notice was given. This being the notice issue date of 04/02/2021. The PoFA legislation then makes further statements relating to the service of the documents indicating that under Pofa service through the post is deemed effective according to 9(6) the second working day after the day on which is posted. This only applies in consideration of the effectiveness of the service of the document, it does not interfere with or make reference to 9(2)(f) which stipulates when the 28 day period starts. Our notice states the literal requirements as outlined in PoFA but allows a postal grace on the system to account for service.

    4. As such the appellant's has conflated two separate issues. As over 28 days has passed from the date on which the notice is given we are entitled to pursue the keeper of the vehicle.

    5. To further substantiate our position we wish to provide the details of the last audit of our ANPR PoFA-Compliant Notice to Keeper design which occurred on 11 February 2021.

    6. The notice, as per the copy supplied, states: "Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is proved".

    7. We have uploaded the audit results as screenshots.

    8. The appellant and adjudicator will note the confirmation of YES to the following questions: "State the creditor does not know the name and current address for service for the driver?"; "Invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges, or if the keeper was not the driver. Notify the operator of the name/address and pass the notice on to the driver?"; "Warn the keeper that if the parking charges remain unpaid after a period of 28 days and the creditor does not know name/address of the driver. Then the operator will have the right to recovery from the keeper";

    9. In light of the audit results we are confident the wording of our notices are fully compliant with PoFA 2012 and the IPC Code of Practice.

  • UmkomaasUmkomaas Forumite
    35.1K Posts
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Lots of fine-sounding words from them, just proving the point they do not understand the difference between 'issued' and 'given', even though PoFA defines what 'given' is. 

    How have they arrived at the statement that you are arguing the dates under CPR?

    However, you're going to have to get the IAS to agree that you are correct and they are WRONG!  Not an easy task. Better chance with a Judge, possibly in due course. 
    Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
    I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    17.6K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    The IAS will support their customer, that is how the IPC/IAS is set up.

    As said, best let a judge rule on their short comings

    The good thing is that soon the IAS will be history and all excuses can be dealt with by an independent authority with no financial connection




Sign In or Register to comment.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Alexa, tell me some top tips

How can this Forumite maximise their smart speaker?

Join the Forum discussion

State pension shortfalls for women

MPs call it a 'shameful shambles'

MSE News