A thread of Pictures of parking firm NTKs

Le_Kirk

My reading of POFA 9(2)e states the PPC must invite the keeper not "the keeper should"! 

Coupon-mad

PLEASE DON'T USE THIS THREAD FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN PHOTOS OF NTKs THAT WE DON'T YET HAVE IN THE LIST IN POST ONE.

splinter64

Thanks for this thread. I have the second (Nov 23) version of the euro car parks NTK, as posted by @Coupon-mad above. I am doing a POPLA appeal with all the usual points (I may post in another thread) and sounds like I'm unlikely to win on PoFA compliance, but I will stick it in anyway. My arguments for non compliance so far:

-doesn't explicitly state that they don't know who the driver is

-uses "advise" rather than "warn"

-doesn't actually say when it was "sent", only when it was "issued" (is that the same?)

The key sentence in this NTK is not really grammatically correct: "If you do not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you...".

The big one for me is that the PoFA states the NTK must describe "the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable". Because this is a template, it is vague about this and doesn't explain whether they think a payment was made but vehicle overstayed, or whether no payment was made, or there was some other problem.

Does PoFA dictate the evidence that they have to include in the NTK? Paragraph 10 suggests that it could, but I guess no amendments have been made to specify e.g., the type of photo that should be included?

Umkomaas

splinter64 said:

Thanks for this thread. I have the second (Nov 23) version of the euro car parks NTK, as posted by @Coupon-mad above. I am doing a POPLA appeal with all the usual points (I may post in another thread) and sounds like I'm unlikely to win on PoFA compliance, but I will stick it in anyway. My arguments for non compliance so far:

-doesn't explicitly state that they don't know who the driver is

-uses "advise" rather than "warn"

-doesn't actually say when it was "sent", only when it was "issued" (is that the same?)

The key sentence in this NTK is not really grammatically correct: "If you do not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you...".

The big one for me is that the PoFA states the NTK must describe "the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable". Because this is a template, it is vague about this and doesn't explain whether they think a payment was made but vehicle overstayed, or whether no payment was made, or there was some other problem.

Does PoFA dictate the evidence that they have to include in the NTK? Paragraph 10 suggests that it could, but I guess no amendments have been made to specify e.g., the type of photo that should be included?

Please open a new thread of your own with details of your parking event. This thread is a repository for examples of NtKs, not for individual cases. Plenty of help available once on your own detailed thread. 

splinter64

Umkomaas said:

splinter64 said:

Thanks for this thread. I have the second (Nov 23) version of the euro car parks NTK, as posted by @Coupon-mad above. I am doing a POPLA appeal with all the usual points (I may post in another thread) and sounds like I'm unlikely to win on PoFA compliance, but I will stick it in anyway. My arguments for non compliance so far:

-doesn't explicitly state that they don't know who the driver is

-uses "advise" rather than "warn"

-doesn't actually say when it was "sent", only when it was "issued" (is that the same?)

The key sentence in this NTK is not really grammatically correct: "If you do not provide the correct address for service of the driver, pass the notice on to the driver, we will pursue you...".

The big one for me is that the PoFA states the NTK must describe "the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable". Because this is a template, it is vague about this and doesn't explain whether they think a payment was made but vehicle overstayed, or whether no payment was made, or there was some other problem.

Does PoFA dictate the evidence that they have to include in the NTK? Paragraph 10 suggests that it could, but I guess no amendments have been made to specify e.g., the type of photo that should be included?

Please open a new thread of your own with details of your parking event. This thread is a repository for examples of NtKs, not for individual cases. Plenty of help available once on your own detailed thread. 

Understood. My comments, like those elsewhere in this thread, are about the NTK examples posted and whether they are compliant, not about my case.

Coupon-mad

Back on topic, a CP Plus non-POFA NTK with newer wording (end of 2023):
 

EDIT:

Their 2025 non-POFA version has dropped the patronising bit 'you are probably wondering...'

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81494631/#Comment_81494631

Coupon-mad

Parallel Parking Ltd
POFA version NTK Nov 2023

Coupon-mad

Thanks to @balsingh for this:

Premier Parking Enforcement Ltd
POFA NTK after a windscreen PCN;

Coupon-mad

Ocean Parking
Two different versions used in 2023

POFA version NTK:




NON-POFA worded NTK (driver liability only):

Coupon-mad

SIP Parking Ltd

POFA version NTK: