JLA "Stopping" Charge

Fruitcake

It looks like the IPC CoP has omitted the parts where the PoFA states the NTD must be given before the vehicle leaves the relevant land, and that it must be given whilst the vehicle is stationary.

I suspect that this is to allow IPC members the opportunity to issue a NTD by post to the keeper's address, even though this is actually a breach of the PoFA.
"We issued a NTD in accordance wiv de IPC roolz, innit."

Umkomaas

prescribes the steps you must follow to pursue the registered keeper

That is somewhat different to your original statement. 

The IPC Code of Practice also makes it clear that the Operator must follow PoFA 2012 legislation when issuing a NtD.

If they haven't followed the steps, they shouldn't, in law, be able to hold the keeper liable for the charge. But it doesn't (and hasn't in the past) stop them trying to argue that on the balance of probabilities the keeper was the driver on the day, ipso facto, holding the individual liable as the driver (not as the keeper). 

They should fail unless the keeper admits to being the driver, the Judge accepts the PPCs premise or the Judge screws up. Litigation is not without risk - to both parties. 

This may never get tested in court if you continue to play their game and the case is discontinued. But that's just crystal ball glazing right now.

Coupon-mad

I don't see a problem with a PPC sending a notice by post to a named driver, if that's what happened here.

Playing Devil's advocate, what else are they meant to do when a driver is named and liability transferred?  I think that's the right process and doesn't have to follow the POFA, which is irrelevant when a driver is known.

Router66

You should fully appraise yourself and those within your organisation with the Act and the processes therein to make sure that you are compliant with the legislation.
@Umkomaas... Apologies for my wishful interpretation; so on the basis that the defendant has admitted being the driver and the hirer of the vehicle in their defence, and the claimant has only issued a postal NtD to the defendant, (that was not received) what Notice might the claimant have issued to the defendant that serves as a Parking Charge Notice? Any thoughts?

Umkomaas

Sorry, no further thoughts. You seem determined to interpret things your way, no matter what advice is given.  I've no further advice to give. Good luck, hope it plays your way. I'll watch with interest from the sidelines. 

Router66

@Umkomaas I am not sure what brought that on? My apology was sincere as I realised I had misinterpreted the CoP and I thanked you for your explanation...
@Coupon-mad sorry, I have only just seen your post...just to add a point that I may not have explained clearly. The NtD was raised two years before the driver was actually identified to the claimant. Not sure if that makes a difference? 

KeithP

Router66 said:

 The NtD was raised two years before the driver was actually identified to the claimant.

Yes, a Notice to Driver must be issued at the time of the parking event.
@Fruitcake pointed that out this morning.

Coupon-mad

None of it makes any difference because the PPC don't have to prove service of the PCN and don't have to follow the POFA.  As long as they show a notice that they say was issued, then as far as the rules of evidence are concerned (which work on the balance of probability) the driver did get a PCN.

I'd get out of this blind alley and concentrate on other defence points that almost always win anyway.

Umkomaas

Router66 said:

@Umkomaas I am not sure what brought that on? My apology was sincere as I realised I had misinterpreted the CoP and I thanked you for your explanation...
@Coupon-mad sorry, I have only just seen your post...just to add a point that I may not have explained clearly. The NtD was raised two years before the driver was actually identified to the claimant. Not sure if that makes a difference? 

Nothing brought anything 'on'. It was just my inability to convey the reality of the situation without going around in another circle. @Coupon-mad explains the situation below - 'blind alley', which is the same as me saying a few days ago 'barking up the wrong tree'. 

No need to apologise, I haven't taken any offence, but I just didn't feel I could provide any further helpful advice.

Router66

https://www.dropbox.com/s/bt6ovuf4vg171jf/Draft WS.pdf?dl=0
The above link should bring up a draft Witness Statement which still requires cross-referencing with exhibits. I would appreciate some feedback on current content before ploughing on. I don't yet have a court date but I want to be ahead of the game when it is confirmed. Thanks in advance...