PCN Local Parking Security Ltd

JulieM

Please could someone advise me on this PCN, I'm the registered keeper but wasn't the driver on this occasion. 
I must confess my first thoughts were that there were no grounds for appeal as the driver had indeed parked without paying, but on doing some research I came upon the thread from Balazz2022 dated 12/2/24 with a PCN identical to mine and the advice that the wording was non POFA compliant under para 9 (2) (e).
So my question is, would it be worth an appeal on the grounds of non POFA compliance even though the driver parked without paying. 

Coupon-mad

Yes the keeper will 100% win at POPLA.

Very easy as long as they don't blab about who parked or what happened.

Use the 'get lost'  robust appeal wording often posted recently by @nopcns

nopcns

Under no circumstance reveal the identity of the driver. That NtK is not PoFA compliant and LPS have no idea who is driver. As they are not relying PoFA to hold the keeper liable, there is nothing else they can do except hope that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will either dob yourself in it by identifying as the driver or just capitulating and paying it anyway.

If they refuse the appeal, POPLA will see it off. Here is a suggestion on what to write in the appeal (verbatim):

This is an appeal by the registered keeper - No driver details will be given. Please do NOT try the usual trick of asking for driver details in order to get around the fact your NtK does not comply with PoFA. As there is no keeper liability, therefore, liability cannot flow from the driver to the keeper and so, is an automatic win at POPLA. Please cancel the notice or issue a POPLA code at which point you will auto withdraw.

JulieM

Many many thanks Coupon-mad and nopcns, for the help you have given not only me but many others on this site. I have emailed my appeal and received an automated acknowledgement and will let you know the outcome in due course.

JulieM

I would appreciate some further advice on this please.
I appealed using the wording as suggested by nopcns and today received this response. 
There is no POPLA code. I assume this is because it is not an official rejection, merely a reminder of their demand for payment.
Is the next step to go back to them and explain in more detail why their PCN is not considered to be POFA compliant?

KeithP

Ignore that and wait patiently for your appeal rejection.

Umkomaas

explain in more detail why their PCN is not considered to be POFA compliant?

That's for POPLA. Waste of time spelling that out to a parking firm who probably don't understand and are definitely only interested in extracting £100 from you. 

nopcns

That response was simply an attempt to get low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to panic and pay up. They have 100% failed to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable. They do not know the identity of the driver who is the only person who can be liable for the PCN.

Continue with the above advice and wait for the cancelation or the POPLA code if they reject.

JulieM

Unfortunately my appeal hasn't had the result I was hoping for so I'm back for help please!

As there was no response from Local Parking Security after 37 days, I used the complaint link from the BPA AOS members list which showed that LPS has now been taken over by Smart Parking, a company which seems to have quite a reputation on here.

Today I have received a response from Smart Parking that the PCN DOES comply with POFA.

I've again compared my PCN with the LPS one on the thread of NTKs and noticed there is one very slight difference in the wording of the last paragraph on page 1. Whereas the one on the thread mentions the right to recover the amount from the KEEPER, my notice states 'we have the right to recover ......... from the DRIVER and further costs may be incurred'. Would this make any difference or are they just trying to be awkward?

Copy of my complaint and Smart Parking' reply is attached.

Coupon-mad

Woah!  Smart Parking has stated two lies:

1.  "The NTK complies with POFA"

2.  "You are OBLIGED to name the driver".

Email this to Smart's complaints email:


Dear Smart Parking,

This is an escalation of my complaint because you've now lied to me and are blatantly misleading me about 'keeper liability'.

You clearly couldn't recognise a POFA compliant NTK if it smacked you in the face. Just to give you a clue: the NTK says "we have the right to recover ... from the DRIVER and further costs may be incurred".   A POFA compliant NTK would have said "keeper".

Even if the above rubbish from you is simply due to incompetence, this (below) can't be, because you should know that (POFA or not) the law sets no obligation on the keeper, but you stated:

"You are obliged to name the driver".

Errm...no I am not.  Either send me my POPLA Code (where you will lose or concede) or cut the lies and cancel the PCN this week.

If you fail to provide a POPLA Code or cancel this PCN I will complain to the BPA and DVLA.

yours faithfully,

YOUR NAME

LDast

The non-compliance with PoFA had absolutely nothing to do with the wording in the NtK. Have a look at the dates on the NtK, specifically the date of the alleged contravention and the issue date of the NtK. 

30th March was the alleged contravention date. 12th April was the date of the NtK. Now have a read of PoFA 9(4)(b), 9(5) and 9(6). To be PoFA compliant, the NtK had to have reached you (given) by day 14 after the date of the contravention. In order for it to have reached you by day 14 which was Saturday 13th April, must have been delivered no later than Friday the 12th April. As it was sent on Friday 12th April, it could not have been deemed "given" until Tuesday 16th April, no less than 18 days after the contravention date.

So, re-read the PoFA paras I pointed out above and can you now see whether they have fully complied with the requirements of PoFA in order to hold the "known" keeper liable or can they only chase the "unknown" driver? Catch 22.

Personally, I would invoke the "go fornicate with yourselves" protocol with (not so) Smart Parking, especially as they have mendaciously stated that you are "obliged" to name the driver. That in and of itself requires a complaint to the BPA as there is no such obligation under civil law.