Is this National Parking Control NtK PoFA compliant?

Debszzzz2

troublemaker22 said:

I do not agree that it is POFA-compliant. Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires the warning to state that the creditor’s ability to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable POFA requirements being met. 

In POPLA case 6063003182 the assessor allowed an appeal on the basis that an NTK that fails to mention POFA does not satisfy the warning requirement in 9(2)(f). Obviously a POPLA decision is unlikely to carry much weight with the rival IAS, especially as the IPC’s model notices to keeper contain the same error.  But a plain reading of the statute requires the warning to refer explicitly to POFA. 

What a county court judge would decide on any given day is anyone’s guess. 

I will put this question to my family member who is a district judge and let you know how he interprets it.

In their meantime, Plan A strikes again. My friend spoke with the manager who agreed that the signs and ground markings are inadequate and will get the PCN cancelled as well as instigate some new ground painting.

I have informed my friend that his telephone conversation was not with the paper it is written on and for him to follow up with an email to their manager with confirmation. We all know that these parking cases are littered with the good intentions of "managers" which fail to get the PPC off the case.

Coupon-mad

Debszzzz2 said:

troublemaker22 said:

What a county court judge would decide on any given day is anyone’s guess. 

I will put this question to my family member who is a district judge and let you know how he interprets it.

Show him the images of the lines from 2016 compared to now.

Those lines are wholly inadequate because they are not prominent consumer notices, and there's no sign to show these might have once been special bays.

In the meantime, Plan A strikes again. My friend spoke with the manager who agreed that the signs and ground markings are inadequate and will get the PCN cancelled as well as instigate some new ground painting.

I have informed my friend that his telephone conversation was not with the paper it is written on and for him to follow up with an email to their manager with confirmation.

We all know that these parking cases are littered with the good intentions of "managers" which fail to get the PPC off the case.

Very good. Sounds positive.

The friend should now appeal as registered keeper, relating the conversation with the named Manager and saying if NPC want to push it to the farce of IAS they will be wasting their money (win or lose) as the keeper will see them in court.  No consumer notices (clear signs & lines)  = no contract, and no breach.  The ticketer is a chancer and should be doing something useful for car park users, like line painting.

Say the above as the appeal.

Debszzzz2

Hopefully, there is no need to appeal anything as the manager of the DL gym has said they will tell NPC to cancel the PCN. My friend will check the NPC website to see if the PCN has been cancelled over the next few days. If not, I have instructed him to get back in touch with the manager concerned and get something in writing from them that can be used should NPC fail to actually cancel it on the orders of the contractor.

I appreciate that, had this progressed to Plans B, C and D, any appeal/defence would be based on no valid contract formed due to markings/signage etc. The evidence in the photos, both the GSV one and those taken by the NPCs lurking photographer leaves little doubt that they would be successful if they ever tried to get this in front of a judge.

The other point in my previous post was the question of whether the keeper could be held liable because there is no mention, whatsoever, that they are relying on PoFA in the NtK. There is wording from the Act that states that the keeper is warned that if after a period of... blah blah, etc. However, as has already been pointed out by @troublemaker22, as there is no mention of the fact that, because there is no mention of any reliance or even any mention at all of PoFA, it cannot be compliant as it does not mention the creditor’s ability to recover from the keeper is subject to all applicable PoFA requirements being met.

As mentioned, I will update once I've had a chance to discuss this point with the family member district judge.

Coupon-mad

No that's unsafe. Do as advised. Appeal.

Debszzzz2

After checking on the NPC website, I see that the PCN is still outstanding. I have advised my friend to appeal as the RK with the advised information.