PCN Claim Form

Fruitcake

You have redacted the dates so we can't tell if it is or isn't PoFA compliant from that point of view.

However, the wording does not appear to be PoFA compliant. You can check this yourself by comparing it word for word with the wording in the PoFA, especially para 8 (2) (f)

KeithP

As mentioned earlier, the fact that these parking events took place on land covered by Railway Byelaws means that NCP has no way of transferring any driver's liability to the keeper.

Even if it was 'relevant land', which it isn't, there is no mention on that NtK of any of the mandatory phrases that must be present to allow any driver's liability to be transferred to the keeper.

Fruitcake

It does say they believe the keeper is the driver. Has the driver's identity been revealed at any point? If not, they are speculating with no proof.

They have also stated that the keeper is required to provide the driver's details, which is not true. There is no such requirement or wording in the PoFA, so a complaint should be made to the BPA.

D_P_Dance

If they reference Eliot v Loake get googling.  

SayNoToPCN

Indeed, complaints should be made. They are stating you are required to do something that you are not, and that is not lawful.

It is not attempting to hold the keeper liable under colour of any law, but its making an assumption, one they have no basis for. If the keeper was not the driver, or cannot recall who the driverr was - multiple regular users - then this is explicitly stated in both the Defence AND the WS

is_data

Fruitcake said:

It does say they believe the keeper is the driver. Has the driver's identity been revealed at any point? If not, they are speculating with no proof.

They have also stated that the keeper is required to provide the driver's details, which is not true. There is no such requirement or wording in the PoFA, so a complaint should be made to the BPA.

The driver's identity has not been revealed at any point as far as I am told. I will look into the complaint to the BPA. Thank you for the suggestion.

is_data

Fruitcake said:

You have redacted the dates so we can't tell if it is or isn't PoFA compliant from that point of view.

However, the wording does not appear to be PoFA compliant. You can check this yourself by comparing it word for word with the wording in the PoFA, especially para 8 (2) (f)

Could you please let me know which of the dates would help you ascertain whether it is or isn't PoFA compliant and I will attempt to get them across to you. I got them redacted only with the view that it might help identify the personal details.

Fruitcake

is_data said:

Fruitcake said:

It does say they believe the keeper is the driver. Has the driver's identity been revealed at any point? If not, they are speculating with no proof.

They have also stated that the keeper is required to provide the driver's details, which is not true. There is no such requirement or wording in the PoFA, so a complaint should be made to the BPA.

The driver's identity has not been revealed at any point as far as I am told. I will look into the complaint to the BPA. Thank you for the suggestion.

Good. So you have a non-PoFA compliant NTK issued for an event on non-relevant land, meaning the keeper cannot possibly be held liable for the charges.

Coupon-mad

It's non-POFA in wording (no warning of keeper liability, therefore there isn't any) and on the fact the location isn't 'relevant land'.


Forget then dates...why so people obsess about the silly dates re POFA and read nothing else from Schedule 4?

is_data

Can I please confirm whether the defence HAS TO BE printed before signing and sending via email to the CCBC email address as per the instructions in the defence template thread by @Coupon-mad ?

What I mean by asking the above is whether using an electronic signature on word format and NOT PRINTING the defence before saving the document as pdf to be sent to CCBC is at all an option please?

Many thanks!