I Park Services-Overstayed

Coupon-mad

Anchovie said:

Gr1pr said:

I cannot see how you can be an owner until the finance was paid off in full, after which you are probably the legal owner and become the registered keeper at that point . Ownership is irrelevant anyway 

You are the hirer, the day to day keeper 

The defence is unchanged as far as your post is concerned 

The law states that the agreement should accompany the NTH charge, so the fact that it was provided to the parking company is irrelevant unless a copy of it accompanied the NtH sent by the parking company 

I agree with your comments in the real world but the finance agreement specifically states 'regulated by Consumer Credit Act' and POFA states '(ii)is not a hire-purchase agreement within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;' 

I think you need to rethink the defence facts.

Bazarius

LDast said:

Gr1pr said:

If the defendant has not or does not deny being the driver, its accepted in most cases that the defendant was driving 

Errr... a read of the persuasive VCS v Edward case would beg to differ. Mr Edward never denied being the driver. VCS never proved he was, which was the point.

Mr Edward pleaded that he could not confirm as a fact whether he was the driver or not and he  put the claimant to strict proof that he was .  

Anchovie

Coupon-mad said:

Anchovie said:

Gr1pr said:

I cannot see how you can be an owner until the finance was paid off in full, after which you are probably the legal owner and become the registered keeper at that point . Ownership is irrelevant anyway 

You are the hirer, the day to day keeper 

The defence is unchanged as far as your post is concerned 

The law states that the agreement should accompany the NTH charge, so the fact that it was provided to the parking company is irrelevant unless a copy of it accompanied the NtH sent by the parking company 

I agree with your comments in the real world but the finance agreement specifically states 'regulated by Consumer Credit Act' and POFA states '(ii)is not a hire-purchase agreement within the meaning of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;' 

I think you need to rethink the defence facts.

Ok, the car was parked on 8 Oct 2023. NTK sent to finance company on 10 Oct 2023 with my NTK sent 21 Nov 2023. Is this outside the 14 day relevant period ? POFA Para 9 (5) ?
Also, what is the 'evidence' that might accompany a NTK from POFA para 10 (1) ? 

Gr1pr

You received an NtH, not an NTK 

Based on the above dates, the NTK PCN letter to the finance company complied with the 14 days rule 

Your NtH seems to fail the POFA timeline for an NtH, but check POFA 

The NtH must also include a copy of the agreement 

Pictures from cameras are the typical evidence 

Anchovie

Gr1pr said:

You received an NtH, not an NTK 

Based on the above dates, the NTK PCN letter to the finance company complied with the 14 days rule 

Your NtH seems to fail the POFA timeline for an NtH, but check POFA 

The NtH must also include a copy of the agreement 

Pictures from cameras are the typical evidence 

I did receive a NTK which was sent 21 November 2023. Excerpt from my  finance agreement  'The credit provided under the Agreement can only be used to purchase the Vehicle described'. 

Coupon-mad

Like I said you need to re-write the defence facts as keeper/driver (like other ones you see).

Anchovie

Coupon-mad said:

Like I said you need to re-write the defence facts as keeper/driver (like other ones you see).

Ok, I wasn't the driver so I'll look for a similar defence. Is this relevant ? 'the car was parked on 8 Oct 2023. NTK sent to finance company on 10 Oct 2023 with my NTK sent 21 Nov 2023. Is this outside the 14 day relevant period ? POFA Para 9 (5) ?'

Gr1pr

Anchovie said:

Gr1pr said:

You received an NtH, not an NTK 

Based on the above dates, the NTK PCN letter to the finance company complied with the 14 days rule 

Your NtH seems to fail the POFA timeline for an NtH, but check POFA 

The NtH must also include a copy of the agreement 

Pictures from cameras are the typical evidence 

I did receive a NTK which was sent 21 November 2023. Excerpt from my  finance agreement  'The credit provided under the Agreement can only be used to purchase the Vehicle described'. 

Only the Registered Keeper, the finance company received an NtK letter, the first postal notice, that is the only NTK PCN letter that is sent out by a parking company, Fruitcake explained this back on page one, that is the one that would need to be POFA compliant , but the wrong registered keeper was listed on the DVLA database 

The finance company provided the Hirer/ Lessee details, possibly with a copy of the agreement, POFA has a special section on timescales for this whole process 

The Hirer/ Lessee received an NTH letter, not an NTK , the reason being that the recipient is the day to day keeper on hire or lease ( it is not an NTK. ) this happened long after the incident so the New NTK to the new registered keeper couldn't possibly comply with POFA because the incident date never changed 

You were not the driver, but as lessee keeper you didn't name the driver to the parking company, so the buck stops with you as lessee/hirer/ day to day keeper , or as the actual new keeper once the DVLA database had been updated to the correct RK , Eventually 

I told you this above, concisely, others have also explained it, but it seems that you know better than those you are asking for assistance , but I do agree that the transfer of the RK has muddied the waters somewhat, something not usually seen 

You are defending as a non driving lessee keeper so must study that part of POFA, especially because you were not the driver, or the original RK either, so only POFA can make you liable if they complied with the specifics within POFA which I cannot believe that they have done in this strange saga, you won't find another saga like it, I have never seen this in 12 years 

The PCN is valid and issued under the 7 months rule, to the driver if known, keeper if unknown, so you are defending as a keeper non driver, no keeper liability, regardless of the V5c saga

I won't be researching that part, or reply again, because you are not listening to us, yet make demands of us 

Good luck however, you will need it!

Anchovie

Gr1pr said:

Anchovie said:

Gr1pr said:

You received an NtH, not an NTK 

Based on the above dates, the NTK PCN letter to the finance company complied with the 14 days rule 

Your NtH seems to fail the POFA timeline for an NtH, but check POFA 

The NtH must also include a copy of the agreement 

Pictures from cameras are the typical evidence 

I did receive a NTK which was sent 21 November 2023. Excerpt from my  finance agreement  'The credit provided under the Agreement can only be used to purchase the Vehicle described'. 

Only the Registered Keeper, the finance company received an NtK letter, the first postal notice, that is the only NTK PCN letter that is sent out by a parking company, Fruitcake explained this back on page one, that is the one that would need to be POFA compliant , but the wrong registered keeper was listed on the DVLA database 

The finance company provided the Hirer/ Lessee details, possibly with a copy of the agreement, POFA has a special section on timescales for this whole process 

The Hirer/ Lessee received an NTH letter, not an NTK , the reason being that the recipient is the day to day keeper on hire or lease ( it is not an NTK. ) this happened long after the incident so the New NTK to the new registered keeper couldn't possibly comply with POFA because the incident date never changed 

You were not the driver, but as lessee keeper you didn't name the driver to the parking company, so the buck stops with you as lessee/hirer/ day to day keeper , or as the actual new keeper once the DVLA database had been updated to the correct RK , Eventually 

I told you this above, concisely, others have also explained it, but it seems that you know better than those you are asking for assistance , but I do agree that the transfer of the RK has muddied the waters somewhat, something not usually seen 

You are defending as a lessee keeper so must study that part of POFA, especially because you were not the driver, or the original RK either, so only POFA can make you liable if they complied with the specifics within POFA which I cannot believe that they have done in this strange saga, you won't find another saga like it, I have never seen this in 12 years 

I won't be researching that part, or reply again, because you are not listening to us, yet make demands of us 

Good luck however, you will need it!

I do appreciate your help Gr1pr and admit that its unusual (always involves a conversation with my vehicle insurer...). Excerpt from my finance agreement below. The DVLA database is correct. The Finance company are the registered keeper (the monthly payment includes Road Fund License) but I am the Legal Owner. The car is not on a hire or lease:


By transfer of the RK, do you mean the finance company writing to DVLA to transfer RK to me (which would be incorrect) or the Finance Company sending my details and Consumer credit Act regulated agreement to the Claimant? 

Coupon-mad has suggested Defence be rewritten as 'Keeper' but I guess I could also include 'Hirer' defence paragraphs on page 2. I doubt the judge will have seen a 'saga' this one... 

Gr1pr

Frankly, I am as confused as you, but there is ONLY ONE Registered Keeper and the first PCN is sent out as the NTK to the Registered Keeper, once and once only, regardless of if it complies with POFA or not. ( POFA is not mandatory. ), that letter was the single Notice to Keeper 

The insurance document is irrelevant to the parking company charge notice, plus Ownership is also irrelevant too, neither come under POFA or its wording or timescales , neither would the driving licence or fuel receipts etc

Any subsequent PCN cannot be an NtK , so is perceived to be a Notice to Hirer, and NTH , regardless of the actual circumstances, because being a hirer or lessee or day to day keeper like you seem to be, is the point of sending out the second PCN to that day to day keeper and attaching the hire or lease or finance agreement to it, if they are trying to comply with POFA, but they all tend to fail this hurdle, especially by not attaching it, or in timescales or wording , or everything 

My belief is that the court will deem the finance company to have been the Registered Keeper, if their details were on the DVLA database, you will be deemed to be a hirer for the purposes of POFA determinations, and the case will possibly rest on the tests for hirer liability, enforceable or not enforceable, especially because nobody has revealed who was driving , especially because the defendant categorically states that they were not the driver 

My thoughts are that your defence is you are presumed to be the Hirer as day to day keeper of the vehicle, but you definitely weren't the driver on the incident date, so you are not liable for the PCN, regardless of the validity of the alleged breach at that location , UNLESS that liability is transferred to you in law, that law being POFA 2012

I would suggest that the paragraph 2 states that the defendant is or was not the registered keeper on the incident , definitely was not the driver on the incident date but is the day to day keeper, presumed to be a hirer or lessee for the purposes of the defence submission 

ONLY if true, so adapt where necessary 

Others may disagree, you may disagree, but the proof of the pudding is eating it at the hearing 

IMHO, ownership and the insurance document or credit agreement wording are side issues to are YOU liable or not, so enforceable against the defendant, or unenforceable against the defendant 

The usual case is that the owner is the finance company or hire company or lease company or the fleet owner, possibly the RK but not always, the actual day to day keeper is the Hirer or Lessee or employee trusted with the vehicle and possibly the driver, or possibly not the driver , but in the chain of command somewhere in the middle 

Study the POC on the claim form, your defence should centre around countering the POC, especially if the POC are woeful, may be based POFA in the alternative to the pursuit of an entity, especially if they think they are pursuing the driver