Appeal Devere parking services

MO369

Fruitcake said:

B789 said:

The original NtK was issued within the timescale to allow PoFA to be invoked, even though the wording is not completely compliant and they don't refer to which Schedule and which paragraph of the Act they refer.

So, as they are likely to be relying on PoFA and the NtK loosely applies, there's not much reason not to identify as the driver. All the other arguments are as advised in the Newbies/FAQ thread, including poor, misleading or lack of prominence signs, lack of landowner authority etc. etc. apply.

Of course, as advised Plan A should be tried first. Plan B next but Plan C is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.

I disagree.

There are 2 NTKs. The first one was for an alleged event on the 7th, = day zero. The NTK was issued on Friday the 18th, which was day 11. The second working day after the date of issue was Tuesday the 22nd, which was day 15, and therefore too late for keeper liability to apply.

I would appeal the first one using the template and add that since the NTK was given too late for the keeper too be held liable, they should cancel now and save themselves money.

That’s brilliant discussion, you confirmed my point, I really appreciated it. Thanks a lot. The fist one doesn’t comply with the section 8 and 9 (4)&(5) of sch 4 POFA 2012. 

MO369

@Fruitcake, in there notice, they mentioned that the notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the date of sending. How to confirm the sending date? 

Also I don’t have evidence of the notices receiving  dates? All I can say they both arrived together on the 25th without evidence? 

KeithP

MO369 said:

@Fruitcake, in there notice, they mentioned that the notice is deemed to have been given to you on the second working day after the date of sending. How to confirm the sending date? 

The 'date of sending' cannot have been before the 'date of issue' printed on it...

B789

Fruitcake said:

B789 said:

The original NtK was issued within the timescale to allow PoFA to be invoked, even though the wording is not completely compliant and they don't refer to which Schedule and which paragraph of the Act they refer.

So, as they are likely to be relying on PoFA and the NtK loosely applies, there's not much reason not to identify as the driver. All the other arguments are as advised in the Newbies/FAQ thread, including poor, misleading or lack of prominence signs, lack of landowner authority etc. etc. apply.

Of course, as advised Plan A should be tried first. Plan B next but Plan C is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.

I disagree.

There are 2 NTKs. The first one was for an alleged event on the 7th, = day zero. The NTK was issued on Friday the 18th, which was day 11. The second working day after the date of issue was Tuesday the 22nd, which was day 15, and therefore too late for keeper liability to apply.

I would appeal the first one using the template and add that since the NTK was given too late for the keeper too be held liable, they should cancel now and save themselves money.

My confusion comes from the dates in the second photo the OP has provided. Are there two separate PCNs here?



If we're talking about the NtK below, then yes, it is not PoFA compliant. However, the one above refers to an "event" 3 days before the "date of issue", which would make it PoFA compliant if a judge accepts the staement in it does conform to the Act.

MO369

B789 said:

Fruitcake said:

B789 said:

The original NtK was issued within the timescale to allow PoFA to be invoked, even though the wording is not completely compliant and they don't refer to which Schedule and which paragraph of the Act they refer.

So, as they are likely to be relying on PoFA and the NtK loosely applies, there's not much reason not to identify as the driver. All the other arguments are as advised in the Newbies/FAQ thread, including poor, misleading or lack of prominence signs, lack of landowner authority etc. etc. apply.

Of course, as advised Plan A should be tried first. Plan B next but Plan C is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.

I disagree.

There are 2 NTKs. The first one was for an alleged event on the 7th, = day zero. The NTK was issued on Friday the 18th, which was day 11. The second working day after the date of issue was Tuesday the 22nd, which was day 15, and therefore too late for keeper liability to apply.

I would appeal the first one using the template and add that since the NTK was given too late for the keeper too be held liable, they should cancel now and save themselves money.

My confusion comes from the dates in the second photo the OP has provided. Are there two separate PCNs here?



If we're talking about the NtK below, then yes, it is not PoFA compliant. However, the one above refers to an "event" 3 days before the "date of issue", which would make it PoFA compliant if a judge accepts the staement in it does conform to the Act.

Yes, they are two. I have already prepared the appeal to send for the first notice. I did my hard work by writing the threads. 

B789

OK, I thought that may be the case. So, on the one which has failed PoFA (7th August event), you do not reveal the driver's identity as the RK cannot be held liable.

MO369

I have finished the first appeal to Devere company for the first notice. I have an issue here, after reading the threads, it said you shouldn't mention the driver name or talk about yourself as the driver. the issue is I sent emails to the building management asking to cancel the notices. I have a concern, this could be transferred as evidence to Devere. Another option is that the last email I received from them was yesterday and I didn't reply, shall I reply and thanks them and say I will let the driver know about the consequences of this complain to make their decision.

 Can I say that? or what do you suggest?

The appeal...........

Re: PCN No. ...................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.

I believe that your signs fail the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in Parking Eye v Beavis. Your unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers.  

Furthermore, as the PCN did not arrive within the stipulate period of 14 days, as specified within the POFA 2012, you have failed to meet the strict deadlines to transfer liability to the keeper.

Therefore, there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

MO369

B789 said:

OK, I thought that may be the case. So, on the one which has failed PoFA (7th August event), you do not reveal the driver's identity as the RK cannot be held liable.

the issue is I sent emails to the building management asking to cancel the notices. I have a concern, this could be transferred as evidence to Devere. Another option is that the last email I received from them was yesterday and I didn't reply, shall I reply and thanks them and say I will let the driver know about the consequences of this complain to make their decision.

 Can I say that? or what do you suggest?

B789

Coupon-mad said:

"Appeal Devere parking services"

There is no such thing.  Did you read other IPC threads?  You won't win on appeal.

I would just dispute it once (no IAS. It is a farce) then ignore them.  We haven't heard of a daft Devere court claim in years.  They aren't very good at court except in Poole where it was rumoured they had mates in high places at the court.

DO NOT PAY THEM.

Which bit of @coupon-mad's advice are you choosing to ignore? As you have already FUBAR'd your case, you may as well just leave it. If they are not good at court, just wait and see if they ever decide to issue a claim.

Also... where on earth does this bit of fantasy fiction come from: "as established in Devere parking services Ltd v Beavis"?

MO369

Coupon-mad said:

No they don't have to go to IAS because you won't be doing that! My advice stands.

It's mentioned in the pack of the charge notice if the appeal to them is unsuccessful then we will provide you with the appropriate details enabling you to lodge an appeal to the IAS. See the photo below: