PCN - request for driver details

Bluetoothwiz

Thanks in advance for your support. 

Received a windscreen pcn in a residential car park. Reason for pcn was stated as 'no permit' and this was given by District Enforcement (IPC member).

(registered keeper) appealed pcn within 14 days stating that vehicle does in fact have a permit and that permit was displayed on dashboard, however it had been blown over (as shown in photos taken by DE). 

Received response from DE stating the following 'if you were not the driver of the vehicle... we cannot accept your appeal'. Followed by a request for the driver to make an appeal. 

I am aware that one should not share details of the driver, although I have seen conflicting information in the threads stating that the situation is different as it relates to residential parking. So my questions are:

i. as this is residential parking, I am inclined to assert that there was no 'driver' just a keeper who was in charge of the day to day care of the vehicle - can I respond with this?
ii. assuming that the advice will be, do not respond at all, just wait - what am I waiting for and what are the likely next steps?
iii. are there any other courses of action I can take at this point?

Many thanks in advance.

Fruitcake

Ignore it and await an NTK through the post. If/when it arrives, appeal again as keeper. If it gets to court then it may be advantageous to reveal the driver's identity at that point, but there is no legal requirement to give that at any point.

Meanwhile, what does your lease/AST/property ownership/rental agreement and head lease, if there is one, say about parking, permits, PCNs, unregulated private parking companies, paying them, court, and your right to quiet enjoyment?
What it doesn't say is just as important.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner, any managing agent, and your MP.

If you are a leaseholder, then ask whoever employed the PPC when an application was made to carry your lease in accordance with the strict requirements of section 37 of Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and what was the result. Did it comply with the requirements to approve a variation of the lease, and if not, or if no application was made, ask them why an unregulated private parking scheme was introduced.

Bluetoothwiz

Many thanks @Fruitcake - really helpful advice. Will follow! 

As far as I am aware the rental agreement makes no mention of parking, permits, PCN etc. The private parking scheme was recently introduced after more than 20 years of non-restricted parking in the same area. 

The preference is that the PCN is dropped at appeal stage since the vehicle has a valid permit. 

Does DE have the right not to consider an appeal unless the driver is named? 

Thanks

KeithP

Bluetoothwiz said:

Does DE have the right not to consider an appeal unless the driver is named? 

No they do not have that right.

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

Bluetoothwiz said:

Does DE have the right not to consider an appeal unless the driver is named? 

No they do not have that right.

But they are unregulated and make up their own rules, so whilst they don't have a right to ignore an appeal if the driver's identity has not been revealed, it doesn't mean they won't.

Le_Kirk

Bluetoothwiz said:

Many thanks @Fruitcake - really helpful advice. Will follow! 

As far as I am aware the rental agreement makes no mention of parking, permits, PCN etc. The private parking scheme was recently introduced after more than 20 years of non-restricted parking in the same area. 

The preference is that the PCN is dropped at appeal stage since the vehicle has a valid permit. 

Does DE have the right not to consider an appeal unless the driver is named? 

Thanks

Before they introduced the parking scheme was there a ballot of all interested parties (freeholders/leaseholders/tenants/residents) and what was the outcome of that ballot?  Did more than 75% of those interested parties consent with no more than 10% against?

troublemaker22

If the driver and the keeper are different people (don’t tell us the answer) the keeper can offload the problem to the driver by providing the driver’s name and address to the PPC any time BEFORE a court claim is issued against the keeper. Once a claim has been issued against the keeper it’s too late for the keeper to escape liability by identifying the driver. 

If the keeper wants to protect the driver for whatever reason, the keeper can defend any ensuing claim as keeper. 

Bluetoothwiz

Thank you very much @Fruitcake and @KeithP. This is useful to know. How frustrating that there are no regulations in place to protect against these companies - essentially they can get away with anything! 

Fruitcake said:

KeithP said:

Bluetoothwiz said:

Does DE have the right not to consider an appeal unless the driver is named? 

No they do not have that right.

But they are unregulated and make up their own rules, so whilst they don't have a right to ignore an appeal if the driver's identity has not been revealed, it doesn't mean they won't.

Bluetoothwiz

@KeithP no there was no ballot. The scheme was just enforced.

Bluetoothwiz

troublemaker22 said:

If the driver and the keeper are different people (don’t tell us the answer) the keeper can offload the problem to the driver by providing the driver’s name and address to the PPC any time BEFORE a court claim is issued against the keeper. Once a claim has been issued against the keeper it’s too late for the keeper to escape liability by identifying the driver. 

If the keeper wants to protect the driver for whatever reason, the keeper can defend any ensuing claim as keeper. 

Noted. It appears that ignoring the keepers claim is a ploy to get the details of the driver. Thanks @troublemaker22 for the insight.

KeithP

Bluetoothwiz said:

troublemaker22 said:

If the driver and the keeper are different people (don’t tell us the answer) the keeper can offload the problem to the driver by providing the driver’s name and address to the PPC any time BEFORE a court claim is issued against the keeper. Once a claim has been issued against the keeper it’s too late for the keeper to escape liability by identifying the driver. 

If the keeper wants to protect the driver for whatever reason, the keeper can defend any ensuing claim as keeper. 

Noted. It appears that ignoring the keepers claim is a ploy to get the details of the driver.

Yes of course that's the reason.
It is far simpler for the parking company to progress a claim against a known driver rather than relying on POFA to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.