got this letter and appealed using the template in newbs section,that failed stopped at Newcastle airport for 60seconds and passengers got out.Dear Sirs, Your ref: ********* I am the registered keeper but I wasn't driving the car. Kindly revert to UKPPO with the following: I have researched the PoFA 2012, which I realise does not apply at Newcastle Airport. UKPPO must cancel and erase my data, as I am not the liable party and I decline their belated request to name the driver. Had UKPPO bothered to actually post the 'ghost PCNs' x2 (original and reminder revealed in the SAR reply but which miraculously BOTH never arrived - or existed...?) I'd have told them the above fact and they could have avoided this waste of time threatogram model. Put up or shut up. If you persist in processing my data and in the event of filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500. This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the DPA 2018 and/or the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded. Cancel the PCN and crawl back under your respective stones forthwith Preferably tell your client from me to crack on with cleaning up their act to comply with the incoming statutory Code of Practice. Groundbreaking improvements would include issuing future Notices of Parking Charge properly and engaging fairly, avoiding involving bulk litigators like you lot in this 'extorting money from motorists' model outed by the DLUHC as a market failure. As for you: I suggest you stop obsessively reading parking forums (quoting influential MSE posters in your template WS is a constant source of amusement!) and go back to chasing shadows for phone contracts and energy providers. yours faithfully,
They replied
You have made an allegation that you were not the driver of the Vehicle on the Contravention Date. As the registered keeper of the Vehicle, and given that you had not provided our Client with the full name and serviceable address of the driver within 28 days from the date of the PCN, our Client is able to hold you liable for the unpaid parking on the reasonable presumption that the driver of the Vehicle had either actual or ostensible authority to enter into a contract with our Client in relation to parking on your behalf. Please urgently provide the full and serviceable name and address for the driver.
Please note our Client applied to the DVLA to ascertain the details of the registered keeper as at the Contravention Date, which returned your name and address. If this address was not correct as at the date of the contravention, this is entirely of your own doing as the onus is upon you to ensure that the DVLA are kept up-to-date with your correspondence details. As our Client issued the PCN to the address provided by the DVLA, and received no returned mail, it is our client's position that the PCN was issued correctly. The PCN is valid and was correctly served.
In response to your allegation of harassment, note that Section 1(3)(c) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Act) expressly states that a course of conduct that someone alleges to be harassment will not be deemed so if the person who pursued it shows that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. Following our Client issuing the PCN, you had an initial period from the date of the PCN to pay the sum due. At different stages, our Client has written to you setting out the basis upon which the PCN has been issued and the steps you were required to take in order to either pay the PCN, or give reasons for challenging the PCN where appropriate. Given that you failed to exploit the opportunity to pay a reduced amount, our Client is well within their rights to pursue you for the full amount of the PCN including its debt recovery costs. Under the circumstances, our Client’s course of action has been entirely reasonable and under no circumstances meets the high threshold of harassment as defined in the Act.
We note your comments regarding a counterclaim, please note that any such counterclaim will be defended. We note your unnecessary comments regarding our client and ourselves and these will be retained on our file, to present at any futurehearing, in support of our application for costs for unreasonable behavior.
Dear
Your admission in respect of being the keeper is noted, although we are not sure of NCP’s relevance.
Whether or not our client’s, UKPPO, chose in action arises from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or common law is for them to plead, should legal proceedings be brought against you. A bare denial from you as to not being the driver of the vehicle is, unfortunately, not an adequate reason for our client to (a) cancel the charge and (b) stop processing and erasing your data.
As to your purported claim for damages, no doubt you will serve our client with a protocol-compliant letter of claim first with proper particulars of any quantifiable damage or loss you have allegedly suffered. Your reference to Simon Clay v CEL is noted, but without any explanation as to its relevance or whether its persuasive authority or binding, it serves very little purpose in the context of our communications. We will of course take instructions from our client on any factual allegations, but see no reason to get into a tete-a-tete with you about matters which are clearly beyond the scope of your knowledge and those which depict your own personal views.
We will respond further once we have instructions from our client.
Regards
It's not the reminder letter needed, it's the very first letter you received - the Notice to Keeper (NtK).Milly25UK said:This is the Back of the reminder I’ve found
