DCB Legal letter before Claim, Driver named

skitahoewhite

nosferatu1001 said:

I pointed out nothing forces them to grant the driver an appeal chance. I stand by that. That si because they are not regulated and the CoP has zero teeth to it. 

I would have to disagree with you on this. My understanding is Schedule 4 and subsequent 5,6 and 8 of POFA, specifically outlines procedural methods by which the creditor or those acting on behalf of, need to follow. I could be wrong but am fairly confident that this is correct.

skitahoewhite

D_P_Dance said:

Surely that would be a win for everyone. 

Not for me.  If you let a PPC off the hook because it is expedient for you to do so, how does that benefit me?

The PPC is not getting off, at all. And frankly what's the difference between winning a county court claim vs this methodology? The outcome is the same, a beaten PPC. One less pocket, we as consumers, have to fill down to some BS dodgy legal firm or PPC seeking to swindle money out of us. 
We as forum users, look through for references. If someone in a similar position seeks plan of action and finds this method helpful along with several other points of advice, then that is helpful, albeit perhaps not to you. I've cerainly trolled through many pages looking for references and help, and have found bits useful and some not so much, but that is down to applicability 
 

nosferatu1001

skitahoewhite said:

nosferatu1001 said:

I pointed out nothing forces them to grant the driver an appeal chance. I stand by that. That si because they are not regulated and the CoP has zero teeth to it. 

I would have to disagree with you on this. My understanding is Schedule 4 and subsequent 5,6 and 8 of POFA, specifically outlines procedural methods by which the creditor or those acting on behalf of, need to follow. I could be wrong but am fairly confident that this is correct.

Your reading of that is not correct. For a start, POFA only applies to a PPC chasing a Keeper, and has nothing to do with them chasing a driver. Dont letthe context of the legislation escape you: POFA does nothing at all for a driver, and furthermore POFA is optional (obv notr talking about hte ban on clamping, more the option to invoke keeper liability)

skitahoewhite

@nosferatu1001 Appreciate the clarification.I was unaware that POFA was optional.  If POFA is optional why is it used as points of defense and/or followed by PPC? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.
 I'll look into this further and try to gain a broader understanding of it. 

KeithP

skitahoewhite said:

If POFA is optional why is it used as points of defense and/or followed by PPC? That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

It was obviously the driver that parked. Any contract to park was made by the driver.

If the PPC wants to transfer any liability that the driver may have to the keeper, then they must conform to the strict rules of Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

If they don't follow those POFA rules then the only person they can hold liable is the driver.

Following from that, if they don't know who the driver is and they haven't followed POFA rules, they'll have trouble sticking the Claim on anyone.


And... there is no letter 's' in Defence. 
 Maybe change your spellchecker from US English to UK English.