Parking Fine Address Incorrect

Umkomaas

blue_cat_rules99 said:

PPC is UK Parking Ltd and solicitor is DCB Legal Ltd.

While you are arguing that the claimant has recorded your home address as incorrect, you need to be sure that your information is absolutely correct. I'm afraid it's not. 

blue_cat_rules99

I presume this comes back to the information on the V5 and has said above it is not a get out of jail free card. Thanks.

Fruitcake

Please tell us the correct name of the parking company. I suspect I know which it is, but I can assure you that it is not UK Parking Ltd.

blue_cat_rules99

UK Parking Control Ltd. 

Apologies.

Coupon-mad

Ok.  Please read other DCBLegal / UKPC threads for how to complete the N180 form, and make sure you come back when you get your local Court hearing date letter, because with that sadly weak defence that you already showed us, you are going to need to pick up the pieces with a really watertight Witness Statement and evidence bundle.

B789

blue_cat_rules99 said:

Defence submitted:
i) defendant denies receiving the Notice to Keeper in
accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) as it was
sent to the wrong address (1 Old Uxbridge Road);
ii) The Notice to Keeper required by paragraph 9 of the PoFA was
defective;
iii) The Notice to Keeper was not served within the time periods
set out in paragraph 9 (4) of the PoFA;
iv) The Claimant has no standing to bring a case;
v.) The Claimant has no capacity to form a contract with the
Registered Keeper and no contract was formed;
vi). The signage did not offer a genuine contract with the
Registered Keeper;
vii). Even if a contract could be formed, it would be void as in
breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations;
viii.) The Claimant has no Cause of Action;
vi.) Even if a debt existed, it would be due to the land-owner,
not the Claimant; and
vii). The Claimant has misrepresented its day-to-day business
costs as a loss.

A few questions...

i) In your sparse defence, are you saying that the breach of PoFA was because they sent the PCN to the wrong address? Was it sent to the wrong address because of any failure by you to update the V5C logbook for your car?

ii) In what way was the NtK "defective" according to PoFA?

iii) What were the dates that were not PoFA compliant? Those dates should include the date of the parking event, the date the PCN was issued, any postmark date on the envelope that the PCN arrived in. The actual date you received it is not really relevant as it is the date it is "deemed" to have arrive that applies.

Umkomaas

Please read other DCBLegal / UKPC threads

Including this one:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

blue_cat_rules99

i) In your sparse defence, are you saying that the breach of PoFA was because they sent the PCN to the wrong address? Was it sent to the wrong address because of any failure by you to update the V5C logbook for your car?

I have no recollection of receiving the notice required by PoFA as it was sent to the wrong address which I guess is due to the V5 being incorrect.

ii) In what way was the NtK "defective" according to PoFA? - the address was incorrect.

iii) What were the dates that were not PoFA compliant? Those dates should include the date of the parking event, the date the PCN was issued, any postmark date on the envelope that the PCN arrived in. The actual date you received it is not really relevant as it is the date it is "deemed" to have arrive that applies. - you are correct and the point I was making was in relation to the address.  

B789

So who do you think is to blame for you not receiving the original NtK, PoFA compliant or not? It was your responsibility to update your V5C logbook details with your current address when you moved. Whilst not very likely, you could be fined up to £1,000 by the DVLA for not updating your details in your V5C.

So, on that point, your defence about a "breach" of PoFA doesn't stand.

The NtK is not "defective" because you did not update your V5C. It could be "defective" for other reasons and you need to have a better understanding of PoFA in order to clarify that defence point.

You haven't answered the question about the timeline that I asked as those could possibly affect the PoFA validity. If you think they are all within the requirements of the Act, then your defence about PoFA compliance fails again.

I will, however, throw you a possible lifeline, as this is UKPC you are dealing with and from my own research, I have yet to see a PoFA-compliant NtK from them, even though they claim that their PCNs are PoFA compliant. PoFA is very clear about the wording to be used in an NtK in order to be able to transfer liability to the registered keeper. UKPC do not use all the wording or has adapted some of it.

If you want to see what I mean and compare the wording in your NtK to the one in this research article I have written, which was based on a UKPC NtK, then be my guest:

Is the PCN PoFA 2012 compliant?

Here is a sample of text that a private parking company (PPC) has put in their Notice to Keeper (NtK). The NtK was a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by post to the registered keeper (RK) with no Notice to Driver (NtD) PCN attached to the windscreen by a parking attendant. This type of PCN/NtK is issued when the vehicles "time on site" has been recorded automatically by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. However, does this bit of text actually make the PCN PoFA compliant so that they can pursue the RK instead of the driver?

"If, after a period of 28 days (beginning on the day after this Parking Charge is given), the amount requested in this Parking Charge has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver's name and current address), you, the registered keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge. If no payment or representation is received within 28 days the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency, at which point additional charges will apply in accordance with the terms and conditions of parking."

The excerpt above seems to contain some of the key elements required by PoFA 2012, such as:

1. Referring to the registered keeper: The text mentions "you, the registered keeper," which indicates that it is addressing the person responsible for the vehicle.

2. Liability of the registered keeper: The statement states that if the Parking Charge remains unpaid or the driver's name and current address are not provided within 28 days, the registered keeper will be liable to pay the outstanding charge. This is in line with the provisions of Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012.

3. Debt recovery agency and additional charges: The text mentions that if no payment or representation is received within 28 days, the outstanding debt will be forwarded to a debt recovery agency, and additional charges will apply as per the parking terms and conditions of parking.

While these elements appear to align with the general requirements of PoFA 2012, the overall compliance with the act depends on other specific requirements and details outlined in the legislation.

Under PoFA 2012, the ability to add charges to the original charge sum is outlined in Schedule 4 of the Act. According to Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5), it states:

"The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9(2)(f) or (4) (including any unpaid charges to which that paragraph applies) less any payments towards the unpaid charges."

This means that the maximum amount that can be recovered from the RK is the amount specified in the NtK, which includes any unpaid charges, minus any payments made toward those charges. It is important to note that the specific wording and requirements may vary depending on the circumstances and the content of the NtK such as whether the original PCN was issued as a NtD attached to the vehicle or is an initial postal PCN/NtK or a PCN/Notice to Hirer (NtH) of a leased vehicle. You need to understand your rights and obligations in accordance with PoFA 2012 and any applicable regulations.

So, according to PoFA 2012, an NtK must specify the amount of the parking charge. If the NtK only states the original £100 charge and does not provide any specific details about "additional charges" that may apply, the threat of additional charges are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

PoFA 2012 sets out specific guidelines and conditions for the recovery of unpaid parking charges from the RK. These guidelines include transparency and clarity in the NtK, ensuring that the keeper or driver is aware of the exact amount they are liable to pay.

If a parking company intends to add additional charges, they should clearly state this in the NtK, specifying the circumstances under which these charges may be applied and providing a reasonable estimate of the potential additional charges. Vague statements such as "additional charges will apply" without further explanation are not compliant with the requirements of PoFA 2012.

Also, the NtK should specify the relevant paragraph under Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 that applies to the specific circumstances of the notice.

In the example above, where a postal NtK was issued and no NtD was attached to the vehicle, the NtK should mention that PoFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2) applies. This ensures that the recipient of the NtK is aware of the specific legal provisions that govern their liability and the procedures to be followed.

The purpose of including the specific paragraph reference is to provide clarity and transparency regarding the legal basis for the parking charge and the rights and obligations of the registered keeper. If the NtK does not clearly state the specific paragraph under Schedule 4 that applies to the notice, it does not satisfy the requirements of PoFA 2012.

In conclusion, the original PoFA 2012 paragraph in the example NtK, is not PoFA 2012 compliant even though it claims to be so.

blue_cat_rules99

Thank you. Brilliant advice.