UKPC - No NTK

angusthedog

I'm currently following through the guidance on the newbies thread following a windscreen PCN from UKPC.

Current time-line to far is:

• 03/04/2022 - PCN received on windscreen
• 28/04/2022 - Online appeal completed using newbies template
• 26/05/2022 - First written correspondence - request for driver details with 7-day expiry (ignored)
  
• 30/05/2022 - 56 day period for NTK has expired
  

I have yet to receive an NTK and the 7-day expiry of the request for driver details has expired.

So no POPLA code.

Do I just keep on waiting indefinitely?

Out of curiosity (cynically), what stops a parking company from claiming they have sent an NTK?

Thanks in advance.

KeithP

angusthedog said:

• 26/05/2022 - First written correspondence - request for driver details with 7-day expiry (ignored)

Wasn't that your Notice to Keeper?
Being the first Notice to the Keeper.

Coupon-mad

No, sounds like it was the UKPC begging letter reply to a keeper appeal, wanting to know who was driving.

In which case the OP just waits.  And wins.

angusthedog

Coupon-mad said:

No, sounds like it was the UKPC bagging letter reply to a keeper appeal, wanting to know who was driving.

That's correct - there's a few posts on here that talk about the first communication effectively being the NTK, so just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the clarification, I'll carry on waiting.

angusthedog

UKPC letter (and obviously declined) now received, along with POPLA code.

PCN was for parking outside the bounds of the space.

Couple of questions:

1. Whilst there isn't necessarily any dispute about this, there are some factors worth noting e.g. not blocking any throughfares, no protrusion onto hatched areas, inconsistency in car park markings. Is there even any point trying to include this into the appeal?
   
   
2. The ebay URL seems dead on the signage template area. Does anybody have that available?

My POPLA appeal is outlined below - would by very appreciative if somebody could cast their eye over this and maybe a view on the questions above.

Cheers!

---

POPLA Reference: XXX

UKPC Reference: XXX

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keep of vehicle XXX, for which, I am appealing a parking charge from UKPC.

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.
3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

1. A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:

4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

6(1) The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further ‘If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper’s address within the ‘relevant period’ which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

The alleged infringement occurred on XX/XX/2022 and from my understanding the NTK was required to reach me by XX/XX/2022. As none of the mandatory information set out by Schedule 4 outlined above has been made available to me as Registered Keeper, compliance has not been met and therefore, there can be no keeper liability.

 2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.”

Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:

“I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.

Exact cut and paste from http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71287628&postcount=2343

 4. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.

Exact cut and paste from http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71285691&postcount=2341

Coupon-mad

Looks fine. Yes I am aware one of the signage links no longer works. Just remove it. Changes nothing.

angusthedog

After submitting my POPLA appeal I have recently received a letter from UKPC informing me that "We have investigated the appeal based on the information you have submitted and confirm that in this instance the parking charge has been cancelled"

Just wanted to say thanks for the support received on here and the guidance available, it has been invaluable.

Fruitcake

Well done, and thanks for letting us know.

Having helped you, we now need your help.
In the near future there will be another government consultation regarding the amounts PPCs will be allowed to charge. We need as many people as possible to engage in the consultation and have their say.
Please come back to this forum about once a week to make sure you don't miss the opportunity to have your say.