Excel Parking not using POFA?

B_Orange_B

Hi,

Just looking for a quick check on my thinking with this set of specific circumstances.

Recieved a PCN Final Demand on 20/04/23, issue date 03/04/23 with a payment deadline 17/04/23 (Yes, it turned up late).

Never received an initial NTK. I sent a somewhat quick reply (1st time I have been sent a PCN) the day before a holiday, with the following wording:

I was issued with a parking ticket for parking at Berkeley Centre 24 Hour Pay Car Park on
7th February 2023.

An initial Notice to Keeper letter was not received as stipulated in your Final Reminder letter.
This does not comply with the rules as set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act, therefore I
will not be paying this charge.

They replied and enclosed a copy of a NTK, issue date 14/02/23, for a contravention date 07/02/23. Turns out there is NO mention of them using POFA afterall (see attached). Now I have returned from holiday and dug a little deeper (Read up on the NEWBIES thread), looks like the following letter would be more appropriate:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74575725#Comment_74575725

Have I used the wrong wording in my initial response (ie. the word 'I' and not 'Keeper'), to unintentionally admit liability? Bit of a Schoolboy error, however any guidance on next steps would be much appreciated.

A £170 demand is something I would like to challenge, even if it progresses to court.

Thanks!

PXL_20230430_190117946~2.jpg

PXL_20230430_190136752~2.jpg

Fruitcake

That NTK is PoFA compliant. If you used words like, "I parked …" or, "I drove …" then you have effectively admitted to being the driver at which point the PoFA becomes irrelevant.

Even if you can prove the NTK was never given, if the PPC has the driver's details then again, it becomes irrelevant.

If the driver's identity has not been given, then the keeper is liable for the charge. This would only change if you can prove that the NTK was never given (received) which is extremely difficult to do.

You can of course claim the NTK never arrived, but it will be your word against a fine, upstanding parking company with an impeccable record of fairness and honesty.

Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP about this well known problem site is still your best option.

B789

Technically, that PCN is not PoFA compliant. It may say that if after 28 days we don't know the name of the driver blah, blah… but that is not the way to word a PoFA compliant PCN. It does not even mention PoFA, never mind the fact that it has to be worded very specifically and also point out exactly which part of PoFA refers.

B_Orange_B

Thank you both for the advice. 

Ironically the MP's office for the area is on the same road as this carpark, so let's see what happens...

I know this notorious carpark had a load of tickets thrown out a couple of years back as they didn't say that the free parking allowance had changed from 2 to 1 hours. The 'driver' in the case of this PCN, didn't realise this had changed either (never needing to park more than 1hr, until this fateful 1hr15mins overstay!).

I suppose I was hoping that the NTK wasn't complaint as B789 pointed out, there is no mention of the specific Act they are reliant on. 

Interesting to know that (potentially) a PPC could hold back sending a NTK, delay sending a Final Reminder and artificially inflate a charge from £60 (inc. early payment discount) to £170, without the keeper/driver ever knowing until it's too late! I imagine you all know this anyway...

Coupon-mad

Yep, we know that.  A rogue firm could never actually send the NTK. Easy scam.

Fruitcake

As far as I am aware, the NTK doesn't have to mention the PoFA, but it must comply with the PoFA dates and include the PoFA warning (wording) to hold a keeper liable.

B_Orange_B

Yep, I misinterpreted it, thinking they had to refer to the specific act they rely on. Will try the other routes as mentioned above.

Out of interest I spoke with a solicitor at JustAnswer, who confirmed how difficult it is to prove they did not send an NTK. With the delayed Final Demand also, I doubt it's a coincidence...