POPLA appeal - NTK issued to REGISTERED keeper of the vehicle (instead of KEEPER of the vehicle)

Steparius

Subject: Assistance Needed for POPLA Appeal - MET Parking Charge Notice

Hi everyone,

A few weeks back, the driver of my vehicle, for which I am the registered keeper, stopped at a petrol station to grab snacks. Subsequently, they went to a nearby McDonald's to buy food for the accompanying child.

Within 14 days, I received a NOTICE TO KEEPER from MET Parking Services for an alleged overstay of approximately 25 minutes. The station allows a maximum stay of 30 minutes. I promptly provided MET with the details of the individual who, at that time, was the keeper and, I believed, the driver.

MET responded, stating that they were not holding me liable, and their correspondence was no longer directed at me since the charge was no longer in my name. Later, the keeper acknowledged, in correspondence to MET, responsibility for the vehicle that day but denied being the driver. I also informed MET that while I was sure about the keeper's identity, I couldn't confirm whether they were the driver.

Over 1.5 months after the initial notice, I received another correspondence from MET, claiming that the named person denied being the driver, and the charge was reverted back to me as the registered keeper.

Now, I am in the process of appealing to POPLA, and I want to ensure I present a solid case. My main argument is that MET is holding me liable as the registered keeper, despite knowing and confirming that someone else was the actual keeper that day.

Additional points I intend to raise include:

1. MET's previous confirmation that they were not holding me liable, implying the cancellation of the debt.
2. Not receiving a new Notice to Keeper (NTK) after the initial one, which was cancelled.
3. The reversion of the charge to me occurred almost 2 months after the alleged contravention, well beyond the 14-day deadline.
4. Never receiving a Notice to Driver.

Furthermore, my defense includes the absence of clear signage near the parking spot and the driver's inability to reasonably enter a contract under those circumstances. There is one sign at the crossway of the entry to the station but it assumes that drivers will have the time to stop and read a long sign at a place where the car needs to be in movement.

Additionally, I wrote to the petrol station's customer care, explaining the circumstances and requesting cancellation of the charge. They replied, asking for proof of purchase. Unfortunately, the driver paid with cash at the petrol station, and while we can provide proof of the McDonald's purchase, it seems the two operators are not linked in terms of parking.

Despite my efforts and explanation, the customer care service has refused to cancel the charge.

As a result, I've personally decided not to stop at BP stations again unless absolutely necessary. However, this doesn't resolve the current issue.

I would appreciate any insights, suggestions, or advice you may have regarding my appeal.

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

Is it a POFA worded notice? 

See the NTK photos thread I started.

Johnersh

Several points here.

As the keeper of your vehicle who did you authorise to drive it?

If that is a single person and they let someone else drive that is potentially a criminal offence. I'll leave that thought there.

If you authorised person A to use the car, then likely as not person A was the driver. I don't really understand why you'd then assist A to deny being the driver in the absence of A naming someone else. That does rather water down the transfer of liability under PoFA.

However, If you can show me the provision in PoFA that permits this:
that the named person denied being the driver, and the charge was reverted back to me as the registered keeper.
I'd be interested to see it. No dice. A transfer of liability is that. If the duty has been discharged it's now for the PPC to prove the breach of contract. Otherwise the driver would need to admit being such in each case and that's not what PoFA says.

Steparius

Thanks a lot for your comments Johnersh and Coupon-mad.

As far as I can tell the NTK is POFA worded, I will post pictures here later (sorry Coupon-mad, I could not find the thread you refer to, is it in the NEWBIES thread?). 

Regarding a single person being authorised to drive the car: It is more accurate to say that I left my car to be used by a friend and his wife which were taking their kids together with mine to a birthday party. I don't know which of them was going to be driving and my understanding is that the person I originally named as being the keeper it's not obliged to reveal who was the actual driver as this stage.

Regarding whether I would assist or not person A to deny being the driver, I'm not sure I understood the point you advanced. But as I am currently understanding it, I am not assisting them, just stating they were keepers of my vehicle on that day, that they acknowledged this to MET and that therefore MET should be dealing with them, not me, independently of wether they recognise being the driver or not. Does this make sense?

Lastly, just to check that I understood your post correctly, the transfer of liability back to me after having been discharged (or as they put it, "reverting the charge to me" because the person I named as the driver denied being the driver) should stand as an argument. Is this correct?

Many thanks for your much appreciated help

Coupon-mad

Click on my username. All my threads are there.

Steparius

Thanks Coupon-mad, I've found the thread and read the associated one linked to the MET NTK, that was quite useful!
Should the non-POFA wording be enough of an argument to POPLA?
Should I explicitly describe why the NTK isn't POFA complying in my POPLA appeal or just say that it uses non-POFA wording?

Coupon-mad

Non-POFA wording is 100% winner if the Assessor is switched on. But yes, you have to spell it out.

Steparius

Thanks again Coupon-mad. I'm posting a picture of the NTK because it is slightly different than the one you have in your thread, in case you find it useful to add to your thread  (mine has the details of the times during the alleged breach of terms and conditions, which the one from raislander doesn't have ). I think it is still non-POFA wording.

Steparius

...and the verso

Coupon-mad

Yes that's non-POFA in wording.

No keeper liability wording from para 9(2)f of Sch4 of the POFA.

Steparius

Posting this before sending it for review and potential reference to others:

**Subject: Appeal to POPLA - MET Parking Charge Notice ***********

 

I am writing to appeal the MET Parking Charge Notice *********** issued for an alleged overstay at BP Stansted SF Connect.

 

**1. Circumstances of the Alleged Contravention:**

On the day of the alleged contravention, I entrusted as keeper of my vehicle my friend (***********) and his wife, who were taking our kids to a birthday party. Both were authorized to drive. The specific driver remains unknown. The vehicle stopped at BP Stansted SF Connect for petrol and snacks, then proceeded to a nearby McDonald's to buy food for the children. Within 14 days, MET issued a NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK), citing an alleged overstay of xx minutes.

 

**2. Previous Communication with MET:**

Following the initial notice, I promptly provided MET with ***********'s details as one of the keeper and, presumably, the driver. MET explicitly stated they wouldn't hold me liable, as the charge was no longer in my name.

 

**3. Keeper's Acknowledgment and Denial of Being the Driver:**

Subsequently, my friend *********** acknowledged vehicle keeper's liability for that day but denied being the driver. I reiterated the certainty of the keeper's identity but expressed uncertainty about the driver. My friend ***********'s letter to MET confirming his keeper liability is attached.

 

**4. Reversion of Charge to the Registered Keeper:**

Over 1.5 months later, MET reverted the charge to me as the registered keeper, claiming the named person denied being the driver.

**5. Non-POFA Compliance of Notice to Keeper:**

- The NTK did not include a warning about the right to recover unpaid charges after 28 days without the charges not being paid or the creditor not knowing both the name of the driver and its current address, as mandated by POFA paragraph 9 (2)(f) (i) and (ii).

- MET was informed of the correct keeper but failed to comply with POFA since the NTK was sent to me, the registered keeper, instead of the keeper, violating POFA paragraphs 9(4)(a) and (b) which require the notice to be given by handing, leaving it or posting it to a current address for service for the keeper

 

**Main Argument:**

MET's PCN has failed to comply with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA. MET Parking Services Ltd has forfeited any right to claim unpaid parking charges from both the keeper and the registered keeper.

 

**Additional Points for Consideration:**

- MET's initial confirmation of not holding me liable, implying debt cancellation.

- Non-receipt of a new NTK after the cancellation of the initial one.

- The reversion of the charge occurred almost 2 months after the alleged contravention, beyond the 14-day deadline.

- Non-receipt of a Notice to Driver.

 

**Defensive Points:**

Clear signage was absent near the parking spot, making it unreasonable for the driver to enter a contract. One sign at the station's entry assumes drivers will stop to read it, impractical and dangerous at a spot where the car clearly needs to be in movement. There is also no signing neither at the petrol pumps nor at the entry of the shop where the car was parked.

 

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your fair and impartial review of my appeal.

 

Sincerely,