POFA 2012 Section 9, Schedule 4, paragraph 8, section 4 has changed? Now says 28 days instead of 14

ChraceDK

I did try contact the land owner first but had no reply.

As for a quick get out I will readily admit to that - but on the basis that the rules in POFA 2012, under which the notice was issued under, were not adhered to. The notice arrived through my letterbox 05/01/22 which is outside the 14 days allowed for an alleged infringement on 18/12/21.

My annoyance is that by avoiding a despatch date on the envelope, CE can avoid following the rules. They can effectively put a retrospective date on the notice if this is the case. There is no proof of despatch date from my point of view.

ChraceDK

You are probably right @Umkomaas but loopholes still annoys me.

Handwriting by me. The rest doesn’t give much to work with.

Redx

But @Johnersh already posted this thread about deemed service , so I believe that the court of appeal has ruled against your missed delivery argument and the judgment is more recent too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6210285/postal-service#latest

Oh and correct that a parking company could alter the date to suit , who would have thought that private parking companies may bend the rules or sc#m people ??  🤔🤔🤔

This is the first time you have mentioned a landowner complaint having been tried

Umkomaas

ChraceDK said:

You are probably right @Umkomaas but loopholes still annoys me.

Handwriting by me. The rest doesn’t give much to work with.

..... unless that bar code means anything, but how you even start to try to get that deciphered is not within my knowledge bank. 

ChraceDK

Redx said:

But @Johnersh already posted this thread about deemed service , so I believe that the court of appeal has ruled against your missed delivery argument and the judgment is more recent too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6210285/postal-service#latest

Oh and correct that a parking company could alter the date to suit , who would have thought that private parking companies may bend the rules or sc#m people ??  🤔🤔🤔

This is the first time you have mentioned a landowner complaint having been tried

That's different, no? That's about whether you require proof of receipt which is not the case I argue. I argue whether you need proof of sending which in that court ruling they clearly had. In my case there is very little in terms of proof of sending - a standard service rather than Whistl would have put a stamp on the letter.

And interestingly, @Umkomaas has a (semi)valid point. In order for the PCN to arrive in time it would have to have been dispatched 28/12 for the "on the second working day after the day on which it is posted" to be 31/12. Deadline for them was 01/01/22. Both 28/12 and 01/01 were bank holidays.

I am tempted to raise it with POPLA on the grounds of requesting proof of despatch. I believe they have backdated the issue date on the PCN to match the time limit, which would be fraudulent(?). In doing so they have backdated it to a bank holiday which furthermore gives me suspicion of "fraud".

I received the letter on 05/03 which is the truth and I am happy to testify. If this is because of Whistl or Royal Mail did late delivery, and it is not of CE's fault, then all fine and I can pay the notice. If they are not able to prove despatch when requested then it is a different problem altogether. No?

Redx

No , it's about deemed service , not about receipt , you are trying to argue about receipt , but the courts use deemed service , as will CEL , Popla , and a court

The CPRs mention it too

https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/creditor-and-claimant-questions-and-answers/when-is-meant-by-deemed-served.aspx

COA

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-029-3284?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Everything we are posting is pointing you to the fact that receipt is a non starter , even read a court case recently where the judge asked about proof of posting , not proof of receipt

If CEL have proof of posting on the 29th , then the deemed receipt applies ! Arrived on the 31st

The Court of appeal said so 15 months ago

The CPR s say so too

We all know that it's deemed delivered 2 days later , everybody says so , especially the courts etc , bearing in mind bank holidays ( the First of January was NOT a bank holiday , it was the 3rd of January )

This argument of yours is a non starter , especially if you were the keeper and driver , the 7 month rule applies if you were the driver

ChraceDK

Redx said:

No , it's about deemed service , not about receipt , you are trying to argue about receipt , but the courts use deemed service , as will CEL , Popla , and a court

Nope. I'm flipping it. I am asking for proof of sending.

I have reasonable doubt it was sent on 28/12 (it was a bank holiday) and would like to see the proof.

If CE have a proof of sending on 28/12 then sure, I'll pay. If not, then it's uncharted territory?

Redx

Chances are the issue date was the 28th , posted the day after , the 29th , a normal working Wednesday , with 2 or 3 delivery days after that

The date 01/01/2022 was definitely not a bank holiday , it was the third , the Monday after

Flip it all you want , if you succeed then good , if you fail , have a plan B ready , nobody here is telling you to pay ! Definitely not !

Ps , it's definitely charted territory , we have seen this argument dozens of times since 2012 , probably hundreds of times !!

Coupon-mad

ChraceDK said:

Redx said:

No , it's about deemed service , not about receipt , you are trying to argue about receipt , but the courts use deemed service , as will CEL , Popla , and a court

Nope. I'm flipping it. I am asking for proof of sending.

I have reasonable doubt it was sent on 28/12 (it was a bank holiday) and would like to see the proof.

If CE have a proof of sending on 28/12 then sure, I'll pay. If not, then it's uncharted territory?

I would definitely put them to proof and state that, because 28th was a bank holiday and not a working day, and because the letter did not arrive until 5th January, it is your position that the date on the NTK was absolutely not the date of posting.

The facts are that CEL staff were not working on 28th December (the operator is put to strict proof, from their PCN dates/actions log) and (just as importantly) nor were Royal Mail, therefore the NTK was not compliant with the POFA because the auto-generated date on the NTK is false and meaningless (quote the bit from sch4 about the notice having to state the date sent).  In the absence of a date sent, the NTK is non-compliant.

ChraceDK

@Coupon-mad
Just after advice, is my next step POPLA and as part of that process indicate that I need CE to prove the send date, or do I request this proof from CE directly (in writing, obviously)?

My normal logical head would say I need to seek resolution with CE before going to arbitration but not sure it works with these companies.