3 x PCNs from EXCEL. Doh!

Snakes_Belly

It may be worth taking a look at Mystic Dad's thread although the first part relates to the set aside. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6382892/excel-parking-services-siddals-road-car-park-derby-i-won/p8

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

The paragraph wording is not compliant.

The paragraph says:

"If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary in proved"

I've read the PoFA paragraph 9, but I cant find any non-compliance, except maybe the contradictory dates regarding the beginning of the notice period at the beginning and the end?
Which bits of the paragraph are non-compliant?
I've also compared the whole NTK to the PoFA and it seems to be compliant to all?

B789

FGLLA said:
The paragraph says:

"If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary in proved"

I've read the PoFA paragraph 9, but I cant find any non-compliance, except maybe the contradictory dates regarding the beginning of the notice period at the beginning and the end?
Which bits of the paragraph are non-compliant?
I've also compared the whole NTK to the PoFA and it seems to be compliant to all?

Where on earth does PoFA say you can be assumed to be the driver?

FGLLA

Snakes_Belly said:

I think that I have seen that Excel Car Park on this forum before. It may have appeared in the media. 

The driver would still have evidence of payments and the VAT number.

Yes that car park has had a fair amount of complaints especially in the local media if you search it's name.
Unfortunately none of the cases resembled what happened in the situation with the driver of my car i.e. parking in copeland st and paying for the other car park!

You're right there are 2 locations/entrances at that same car park. the driver was pictured entering and leaving via ANPR with pictures provided so they used the correct entrance/exit. However, I believe the misunderstanding was parking in copeland st car park (Excel owned), but paying at the on street parking meter which was close by, using the Mipermit app.

This link shows the entrance to copeland st car park, then if you rotate by around 180 degrees, you can see a parking meter with a MIPermit sticker.
https://goo.gl/maps/pA4eJfctmGmF7ba58

FGLLA

B789 said:

FGLLA said:
The paragraph says:

"If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary in proved"

I've read the PoFA paragraph 9, but I cant find any non-compliance, except maybe the contradictory dates regarding the beginning of the notice period at the beginning and the end?
Which bits of the paragraph are non-compliant?
I've also compared the whole NTK to the PoFA and it seems to be compliant to all?

Where on earth does PoFA say you can be assumed to be the driver?

True, PoFA doesn't state that the PPC can assume you were the driver, just that they have the right to recover unpaid parking charges:

PoFA:

" (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

So it's non-compliant based on them assuming you were the driver?

Fruitcake

B789 is correct. Nowhere in Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 does it state "on the assumption you were the driver". There is no warning that the keeper can be pursued either.
Therefore, the NTK is not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable.

Normally we don't suggest an IAS appeal, but it might just work as long as you state categorically that the keeper was not the driver, and that the NTK is not PoFA compliant so the keeper cannot be held liable.

For any NTK not already appealed, you can try it anyway on the appeal portal or send the appeal by post, first class from a Post Office counter, and obtain the important free proof of posting.

Alternatively you could send a cease and desist order stating much the same, quoting all three PCN numbers.

Umkomaas

Compare and contrast

If, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice,

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

'Issued' and 'Given' are two quite different animals. PoFA Schedule 4 defines what 'Given' is. 

Coupon-mad

Don't think IAS will care. But it does mean you can't be held liable in law due to a NTK with two issues and it's clearly worded to mislead you about liability.

Snakes_Belly

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/flood-complaints-siddals-road-car-8470668.amp

I think that the driver may have struggled to find the app for this car park and the default app was the NCP. It seems to have happened to a number of other people.

This has happened in my area whereby drivers have struggled to access an app on an Excel car park and have moved but have gone over the 10 minutes allowed to park. 

It might be an idea to get the MP involved. Whilst Excel will not take any notice of letters from MP's it can put pressure on landlords. 

FGLLA

Fruitcake said:

B789 is correct. Nowhere in Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012 does it state "on the assumption you were the driver". There is no warning that the keeper can be pursued either.
Therefore, the NTK is not PoFA compliant and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable.

Normally we don't suggest an IAS appeal, but it might just work as long as you state categorically that the keeper was not the driver, and that the NTK is not PoFA compliant so the keeper cannot be held liable.

For any NTK not already appealed, you can try it anyway on the appeal portal or send the appeal by post, first class from a Post Office counter, and obtain the important free proof of posting.

Alternatively you could send a cease and desist order stating much the same, quoting all three PCN numbers.

I understand the driver assumption part, however, doesn't the extract from PoFA below warn that the keeper would be liable to pay (if all conditions were met)?
or do "pursue" and "right to recover" have different meanings also?

PoFA:

" (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

I'll try the IAS appeal pointing those 2 defects in the multiple NTKs and see how it goes. It may not work but if it does it'd be less time intensive than going to court.