DCB Legal - Euro Car Parks

D_M_H

I appealed a PCN with POPLA, following the excellet guidance on the NEWBIES thread - guidance I have followed successfully on previous appeals.

I have just heard my POPLA appeal was rejected.

The appeal was on grounds of a non-compliant NtK as well as signage, ANPR, etc but as NtK was not compliant, I thought it was a sure win. The assessor stated 'I am satisfied [the NtK] is fully compliant with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 of POFA'

The NtK states that

'if, after 29 days from the date given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued)'

and not the prescribed wording

'if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given'

I assumed that this incorrect timeframe made the NtK non-compliant.

Similarly, I showed that the 'period of parking' was not stated on the NtK, which merely showed two ANPR photos of the vehicle (one front, one back) on a public road near the car park entrance. The period of parking was not shown, only the assumed entry and assumed exit times taken from these photos.


Following the rejection of my appeal, I went back to the NtK and noted further ommisions:

- it does not describe the parking charges due from the driver at the end of the parking period (9.2.c)
- it does not specify the total amount of unpaid charges (9.2.d)
- the payment due date specified at the top of the NtK is 28 days after the date issued, without taking into account the two working days to be counted before a postal NtK is deemed to be 'given' - this due date is therefore 2 working days before payment is actually due according to POFA and three working days before it is due according to the incorrect timescale on the NtK

The assessor's assertion that the NtK is fully compliant with POFA Schedule 4 appears to be incorrect, but as I cannot appeal against POPLA's decision, I am unsure what to do next.

Any guidance would be much appreciated.

KeithP

Wait patiently for a court claim to drop through your letterbox.

Which parking company?

D_M_H

Thanks KeithP - Euro Car Parks

Coupon-mad

They usually issue POFA compliant NTKs and this one sounds compliant.

The good news is that ECP are not litigious.

D_M_H

Thanks, Coupon-mad.
I’m sorry to hear the NtK is compliant - I was pinning my hopes on them not having included every element of para 9. 

Grizebeck

D_M_H said:

Thanks, Coupon-mad.
I’m sorry to hear the NtK is compliant - I was pinning my hopes on them not having included every element of para 9. 

why when ECP dont do court claims for single tickets

D_M_H

Thanks Grizebeck. That’s reassuring and appreciated.

D_M_H

After a dozen letters requesting I pay the parking charge and admin fee, I have now received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal giving 30 days to reply and asking me to fill in their forms. 

I am currently making my way through the advice on the ‘newbie’ post, and have made a formal complaint to the landowner
i I have also drafted a reply to DCB Legal following Coupon-Mad’s generic reply to a letter of claim. As the Basis of Claim says I am ‘liable as Keeper or Driver’, I have added a third question based on Troublemaker22’s Gatwick Airport suggested response, as below. Is it worth including this? Thanks in advance

3. The Basis of Claim laid out in your letter is unclear; can you confirm if your client is alleging liability as Keeper, or if they are alleging liability as Driver.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle; I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023). 

As you and your client are well aware, keeper liability is granted pursuant to Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so long as the strict provisions contained in Schedule 4 have been met; as detailed in my original submission to the appeals process, your client has failed to meet these strict provisions and therefore is unable to pursue me as keeper.

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct

Umkomaas

As you and your client are well aware, keeper liability is granted pursuant to Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, so long as the strict provisions contained in Schedule 4 have been met; as detailed in my original submission to the appeals process, your client has failed to meet these strict provisions and therefore is unable to pursue me as keeper.

Have they failed?  Earlier in the thread it was stated that ECP NtKs are normally PoFA compliant. You accepted that then. Has something changed?

D_M_H

Hi Umkomaas

Thanks for your reply. Nothing has changed with the NtK, and I have scrolled back and reminded myself of Coupon-mad’s advice re: compliance - apologies, it has been a while since I tried to wrap my head around this. 

I will send the response minus question 3, and await a response from the landowner, fingers crossed. 

LDast

Don't overthink this. ECP are on a spree. Simply follow the advice in the Newbies/FAQ thread and put for your single paragraph in the template defence something like "The driver did purchase a permit" (or whatever they claimed the driver failed to do in the NtK) and that is all.

Go through the motions of defending and everything else that is advised in the Newbies/FAQ and Template defence threads and this will all be discontinued early next year.