5 year old PCN turned up

RogerTheBear

Fruitcake said:

Send an email to the DPO of the PPC stating that this was a hire/lease vehicle but they have failed to send you a copy of the Notice to Hirer and therefore you cannot be held liable as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012 and cannot therefore hold you liable for the charge.
Give them seven days to respond with a copy and tell them you will report them to the ICO if they fail to do so, and instruct them to cease proceedings.

Again, include proof of ID as you did before, include the PCN number and any other reference number.
Copy Gladstones in as well.

Send it to any other email addresses you can find for them as well, and also send it to yourself.

Separately, send an email to Gladstones telling them this was a hire/lease vehicle but their client has failed to provide you with a copy of the NTH and therefore you cannot be held liable as they have failed to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012. As a result, they should inform their client and advise them to cease proceedings immediately.

Do not under any circumstances reveal the driver's identity.

Brilliant. 

I have the direct email for the DPO of the PPC. So I will fire them an email and tell them as such. 

Fruitcake

If you were not the registered keeper, and the car was on a six month lease, then you must have been the hirer/lessee.


Remember, anyone could have been driving five years ago, including me and several tens of million other people. Family members, friends, garage mechanics could all have driven the car as long as they were insured to do so.
I say again, I do not believe you can remember who was driving on a specific unremarkable day, five years ago.

In all correspondence from now on, sign yourself off as hirer/lessee.

RogerTheBear

That’s spot on. I shall compose some emails this evening. Should I also make reference in the same email about the additional costs and the £1.50 processing fee for payments 

and also the differences In the amount claimed vs the amount on the forms £160/170 

Fruitcake

I suggest you delete my quote. I have edited my original post.

Don't hang about. Get the emails off about being the hirer asap. Everything else can be done afterwards.

I'm not saying it will work, but if they do issue a claim, it will help you if you tell them it was a hire/lease car beforehand.

RogerTheBear

Fruitcake said:

I suggest you delete my quote. I have edited my original post.

Don't hang about. Get the emails off about being the hirer asap. Everything else can be done afterwards.

I'm not saying it will work, but if they do issue a claim, it will help you if you tell them it was a hire/lease car beforehand.

I have just sat down to do the email. 

I have just rented the email that I received and this is what it says from the ppc 

But they apparently sent the letter that’s in a previous post. But it didn’t seem like a NTH but still a NTK? 

Fruitcake

Respond by telling them that since the car was a hire/lease vehicle, and the hirer/lessee was not present at the time of the alleged event, they, the hire/lease company, cannot possibly have known who was driving and therefore cannot transfer liability to an unknown person.
If the registered keeper transferred liability to anyone, it can only have been to the hirer/lessee. For them to state anything else would be a falsehood. 
If your name and personal details have been provided to the PPC by the hirer/lessee, then you have the right to be supplied with copies. The PPC may of course redact a third party's details from it if they wish, but they are still required to supply you will all personal data they hold hold about you, the data subject. If they fail to provide you with a copy of the transfer of liability document containing your personal details, (suitably redacted of third party information), you should warn them that you will report them to the ICO. If they bring a claim against you but fail too supply all of your personal data as requested, then this will be brought to the attention of the courts. 

Tell them for the avoidance of doubt that you were the hirer/lessee of the vehicle at the time of the alleged event, and therefore the day to day keeper as defined by the PoFA 2012. It is unreasonable for them to expect you to remember who was driving on an unremarkable day five years ago. No assumptions can be made about the identity of the driver, and there is no legal requirement for you to name them even if you knew.

Since the PPC has failed to provide you, the hirer/lessee with a PoFA compliant Notice to Hirer, you cannot be held liable for the charge.


You should also ask the hire/lease company what they sent to the PPC so you can compare notes. Also check if they are a member of the BVRLA trade association as they have told their members to pass on the hirer/lessee's details.
If they named you as driver, you should complain because they could not possibly have known.

If your car insurance has more than one named driver on it, or other people had access to the vehicle on their own insurance, then say that multiple drivers were insured to drive the vehicle at the material time, therefore on the balance of probabilities, you were not the driver in you response to the PPC.

Coupon-mad

You said to us at the start:

The only thing I know is it was a Saturday at a retail park in Merseyside.

Presumably from the NTK you can now tell whether this was an alleged overstay (most common allegation at retail parks) or maybe not knowing you had to exempt your car in the retailer premises on a tablet, or something? 

You realise this will result in a court claim? 

I think: make your mind up now whether you are going to play games about whether there was a NTK or NTH (pretty much the same thing in many ways...and makes no odds if you were driving) or whether you are going to defend as admitted driver, or whether you think it was in fact someone else driving? 

Now is the time to decide which way to start responding. You want to be consistent and not obstructive.  It will look better in court later to engage honestly about the allegation, if you were the driver.

If you don't know much about the court process and how to defend, now is the time to read the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread and the Template Defence thread so you are familiar with what to expect before the claim is served.  No need to panic but forewarned is forearmed.

Has Gladstones/the parking firm got more than one possible address for you?  That needs sorting out, if so. 

i.e. was the NTK/NTH sent in your name but to an old address or what was the reason why you knew nothing about this?

RogerTheBear

Coupon-mad said:

You said to us at the start:

The only thing I know is it was a Saturday at a retail park in Merseyside.

Presumably from the NTK you can now tell whether this was an alleged overstay (most common allegation at retail parks) or maybe not knowing you had to exempt your car in the retailer premises on a tablet, or something? 

You realise this will result in a court claim? 

I think: make your mind up now whether you are going to play games about whether there was a NTK or NTH (pretty much the same thing in many ways...and makes no odds if you were driving) or whether you are going to defend as admitted driver, or whether you think it was in fact someone else driving? 

Now is the time to decide which way to start responding. You want to be consistent and not obstructive.  It will look better in court later to engage honestly about the allegation, if you were the driver.

If you don't know much about the court process and how to defend, now is the time to read the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread and the Template Defence thread so you are familiar with what to expect before the claim is served.  No need to panic but forewarned is forearmed.

Has Gladstones/the parking firm got more than one possible address for you?  That needs sorting out, if so. 

i.e. was the NTK/NTH sent in your name but to an old address or what was the reason why you knew nothing about this?

I’ve updated them both with the address as they had an old one that they had sent a letter to. 

I know 100% I wasn’t driving the car on that day as at the time I also had a different car that I used more. 

Coupon-mad

OK, that's how you respond then.  It is as @Fruitcake said, but saying at the start that you were NOT driving.

RogerTheBear

Coupon-mad said:

OK, that's how you respond then.  It is as @Fruitcake said, but saying at the start that you were NOT driving.

In the email should I also point out the difference in amounts claimed?