Parking Charge Notice - non POFA - appeal rejected...

Moola123

Hello, 
I received a hospital grounds parking charge notice dated 14/03/2024 for an alleged violation dated 31/12/23. I was not the driver.

I appealed on their website (I ticked ''keeper/non driver) stating the following:

''I have seen no evidence of a contravention and liability is denied.

As your Parking Charge Notice does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) you are, in law, unable to hold the registered keeper of the vehicle liable for the parking charge.

Therefore, I suggest that you contact the driver. As there is no legal requirement placed on the registered keeper to identify the driver, I will not be doing so.  I require you to cancel the parking charge and remove my personal information from your database."

Their (PCPEA, member of the IPC) response was:
''Thank you for your appeal received on 20/03/2024 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made, together with the evidence that we are holding. Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the clearly displayed Terms and

Conditions of Parking.This Parking Charge Notice was sent out without mention of PoFA which, if you read the notice, we are not relying on in this request for payment. The Notice to Keeper is a notice sent to the registered keeper of a vehicle as it is a reasonable assumption that the keeper of the vehicle was driving. The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the

balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident. We have requested the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purpose of enforcing this unpaid charge. Such information has been provided in accordance with the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. As you have been identified as

the registered keeper of the vehicle, we are contacting you in enforcing this charge as authorised by the landowner of this site. We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have however now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. You have now reached the end of the internal appeals procedure. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by 03/04/2024 or £100 to reach us by 17/04/2024. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again. Payment should be made using a debit or credit card by calling the automated payment line on 0333 023 8905 or by using our online payment service, other payment methods are described on our site.

You do have the right to appeal this further, to the Independent Appeals Service (www.theias.org), where your case will be considered by a team of independent Adjudicators. Please note, if you escalate the appeal, you will lose the option to pay at the reduced amount due to the additional time and administrative effort this will incur.

If you choose to do nothing we will take further action to collect the full charge of £100 via our debt recovery procedures and may proceed with Court action. Please be aware that if the case is passed for debt recovery action an additional charge of up to £70 will apply. If Court action is required further costs and charges will be sought.

Yours sincerely,

Appeals Department

PCPEA''

I have it in black and white that they are admitting their NTK does not conform to PoFa, so they cannot hold the keeper responsible for their charges. 

Do I respond again to state I have complained to the hosital and DVLA, and then wait for this to go away (ignoring the debt collectors letters), or is there something else I should also be doing?

Thanks in advance!

Coupon-mad

The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident.

No it's not, especially when you were not the driver.

Why not give the useless IAS a whirl, stating that you were not the driver and the notice was non-POFA worded, and the operator is legally wrong to try to 'assume' the keeper was the driver.  Especially in a case where the appellant was not the driver (and can prove you were elsewhere?). 

Append the NTK (both sides) and any proof you were not driving and upload the whole transcripts of Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward (both) - search the forum.

Should be fun to see the IAS twist it in favour of the PPC which they probably will, with yet another bizarre anti-consumer 'decision'!

Worth the punt, purely because it is legally winnable and 20% of PPCs give up at IAS.

If not, ignore them.  See them in court. 

Please show us both sides of the PCN.

  

Moola123

Thank you!!! I will do that and report back asap

porridgestation

Absolutely no burden of proof required. As you are unable to identify the driver at the time then no legal means is possible to hold you liable as registered keeper. All they are trying to do is make you inadvertently identify the driver.
 
"If a PCN is not PoFA 2012 compliant, the PPC cannot legally transfer liability for the parking charge from the driver to the Registered Keeper. By not disclosing the driver's identity, you can prevent the PPC from pursuing the Registered Keeper for payment."

Notice the lack of holding you, the keeper, responsible for the parking charge in their psudo-garbage, just contacting you to make you aware of it. Not that you're legally responsible for the actions of the driver, whoever they were:

"As you have been identified as the registered keeper of the vehicle, we are contacting you in enforcing this charge as authorised by the landowner of this site."

Fruitcake

Plan A is always a complaint to the PALS/the head of the hospital trust/CEO and your MP, reminding them of the government's NHS parking principles. Have you done this yet?

NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Moola123

Coupon-mad said:

The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident.

No it's not, especially when you were not the driver.

Why not give the useless IAS a whirl, stating that you were not the driver and the notice was non-POFA worded, and the operator is legally wrong to try to 'assume' the keeper was the driver.  Especially in a case where the appellant was not the driver (and can prove you were elsewhere?). 

Append the NTK (both sides) and any proof you were not driving and upload the whole transcripts of Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward (both) - search the forum.

Should be fun to see the IAS twist it in favour of the PPC which they probably will, with yet another bizarre anti-consumer 'decision'!

Worth the punt, purely because it is legally winnable and 20% of PPCs give up at IAS.

If not, ignore them.  See them in court. 

Please show us both sides of the PCN.

  

Here you go - both sides of the PCN...

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always a complaint to the PALS/the head of the hospital trust/CEO and your MP, reminding them of the government's NHS parking principles. Have you done this yet?

NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Do the above this week, without saying who was driving. Complain.as registered keeper. Tell PALS how distressed the family is by this very late and extortionate notice and tho fact the reply to your appeal has lied to you about keeper liability.

Coupon-mad

Moola123 said:

Please show us both sides of the PCN.

Here you go - both sides of the PCN...

Thanks.  It's only Parkshield; nothing to worry about.  But do see if PALS will cancel it first when you complain as keeper.

Then do this:

Coupon-mad said:

"The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident."

No it's not, especially when you were not the driver.

Why not give the useless IAS a whirl, stating that you were not the driver and the notice was non-POFA worded, and the operator is legally wrong to try to 'assume' the keeper was the driver.  Especially in a case where the appellant was not the driver (and can prove you were elsewhere?). 

Append the NTK (both sides) and any proof you were not driving and upload the whole transcripts of Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward (both) - search the forum.

Should be fun to see the IAS twist it in favour of the PPC which they probably will, with yet another bizarre anti-consumer 'decision'!

Worth the punt, purely because it is legally winnable and 20% of PPCs give up at IAS.

If not, ignore them.  See them in court.  

nopcns

Why not also email a complaint to the operator informing them that their statement, "The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident." is mendacious. Should they be intellectually malnourished enough to ever try and issue a county court claim based on that statement, you will refer to it to the court as evidence of vexatiousness and unreasonable behaviour.

You should also report them to the ICO as their privacy policy on their website contains no contact information, whatsoever, for their DPO.

Moola123

Fruitcake said:

Plan A is always a complaint to the PALS/the head of the hospital trust/CEO and your MP, reminding them of the government's NHS parking principles. Have you done this yet?

Done, thank you!

Moola123

nopcns said:

Why not also email a complaint to the operator informing them that their statement, "The burden of proof is then on the keeper of the vehicle to prove on the balance of probabilities that they were not the driver at the time of the incident." is mendacious. Should they be intellectually malnourished enough to ever try and issue a county court claim based on that statement, you will refer to it to the court as evidence of vexatiousness and unreasonable behaviour.

You should also report them to the ICO as their privacy policy on their website contains no contact information, whatsoever, for their DPO.

Perfect - I will do this too