JLA "Stopping" Charge

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

There isn't really such a thing as a postal notice to driver.  Not under POFA anyway.  Can you show it here (minus your details)?

And since this is JLA, there's no POFA and no Notice to Driver.

Router66

Thanks for your responses Coupon-Mad and Castle.
In my LBC response to VCS I made the point that their PCN was not compliant with PoFA requirements and therefore no keeper liability. Is it worth asking why they issued a NtD and didn't bother to send it? And could I argue that the NtD is a "false instrument" since there is no evidence of me being the driver of the vehicle at the material time?
Below is a redacted copy of the NtD, as requested.

Castle

And did they include in your SAR response a copy of the letter from the RK which states that you are the driver?

Redx

Plus a company or lease or hire firm can only tell VCS who a hirer or lessee or keeper is , not a driver !

So an NTH PCN would be issued to that entity , not a NTD ! , Not unless the driver admitted liability

So if VCS sent an NTK PCN to the registered keeper , the keeper would name the Hirer ( or lessee , or day to day keeper )

Plus where are the copies of the hire or lease documents ?  These are rarely obtained or included

VCS work on the basis that the keeper or hirer or lessee was also the driver , using the balance of probabilities

Coupon-mad

Thing is, they are acting on the reasonable presumption you were the driver.  So, if you were, I would absolutely not go down that rabbit-hole in a court defence.

A parking firm doesn't have to use the POFA.

Router66

Thank you both for your responses...
@Castle : The SAR contained a copy of the letter from the RK to VCS but it did not say I was the driver, it said I was "authorised to act on this parking charge notice".
@Redx : "So if VCS sent an NTK PCN to the registered keeper , the keeper would name the Hirer ( or lessee , or day to day keeper )"
The RK did not want to engage in the process other than send VCS a letter saying I was authorised to act. They refused to refer to me as "the keeper" as they thought this would conflict with their ownership rights of the vehicle in some way!  However, I also sent VCS an Email on the same day confirming I was the "keeper" and attached a copy of the authorisation letter.  
"Plus where are the copies of the hire or lease documents ?  These are rarely obtained or included"
The vehicle is neither leased nor hired; it is owned by my employer and allocated to me for business and private use.
"VCS work on the basis that the keeper or hirer or lessee was also the driver , using the balance of probabilities"
I am aware of this, but since I didn't receive any notification of the alleged contravention until 6 months after the event, it is impossible to recall with any certainty who was driving the car at the material time. It could have been any member of my family, any employee of my company or their family, or members of their family, all of which are insured to drive under the companies vehicle insurance policy.
None of the documentation supplied by VCS was of any help in identifying or eliminating a potential driver, but what might have helped is a Notice to Keeper that was received 14 days after the event instead of a Demand for Payment 6 months after the event.  Keep up the good work Guys (and Gals) your advice is much appreciated. 

Redx

I think that you are overthinking this , you are taking it far too literally ! We are generalising , save the pedantry for the judge , or hire a lawyer 🤔🤔😀😀

POFA does not apply
VCS have never complied with POFA anyway , regardless !
You are keeper
You may have been the driver
You may be considered as hirer or lessee under the typical application , because you are not the registered keeper
The hire docs won't matter if POFA is irrelevant , but VCS never obtained them as anyway

VCS had 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to issue the NTK

VCS have 6 years to issue a court claim pack from the CCBC in Northampton
VCS are working on the probability that you are the keeper and driver , so are liable

VCS don't comply with POFA so the 14 days notice period is irrelevant
If it goes to court , VCS will pursue you as the driver , regardless of any background information or theories

Router66

Thanks for your clear explanation of the process Redx...I will aim to strike a better balance between too much information and not enough for future posts!
When I received the SAR response and saw the undelivered NtK and NtD, I assumed VCS were going down the PoFA route and would claim the documents were sent. Had they been delivered, and in time, I could not see why they wouldn’t be PoFA compliant, although “not relevant land” would be point to challenge.
Sorry I missed your post Coupon-Mad...Your comments are much appreciated and taken on board.

Redx

VCS have never gone down the POFA compliance route , so nothing to see there

Airports have bylaws , so not relevant land , so POFA is irrelevant , other than the only route to holding a keeper liable , which it cannot be on airport land, meaning it's a useful argument for the Defence. !

At the moment there is no set procedures or names for private parking charges , we use the names only to try to provide clarity from chaos , it's an unregulated cowboy industry , until next summer !

I don't think we have ever seen any parking company comply with POFA for hire or lease or company vehicles and send the documents with the PCN , as described in POFA , meaning that I don't think we have ever seen it done properly in 9 years by anyone, so yours wont be the first time they did , certainly not VCS !

But VCS won't care , they will pursue the name on their records come hell or high water ! If that is you , then you are the prey 😁😁

Router66

Just to clarify, reading my previous posts from 19th October, I slipped into defendant mode when actually the defendant is a Family Member (FM)…sorry for any confusion.

 Anyway, back on track...FM has now received a “Notification of Instruction” from Elms Legal Ltd. in order to recover the parking charge. Elms point out that VCS have sent the FM a Letter Before Claim (LBC) which is compliant with pre-action protocol for debt claims. They recommend the FM contacts them urgently by phone in order to avoid “further legal action”.

The FM responded to the LBC on 27th September denying the debt on the basis of the vehicle being stopped, waiting for oncoming traffic to clear before pulling out to join the road. There was also significant reliance placed on PoFA 2012 non-compliance but recent forum advice is that this won’t help.

VCS have not replied to FM’s LBC so the FM is uncertain of what is the best action to take. Further advice from the forum would be much appreciated.