NCP overstay PCN

Leftynotreety

Hi, hoping someone can sense check my interpretation of Plan A and POFA para 9 2012.

My wife has a motability lease car and received a NTK (no windscreen ticket) addressed to the ‘Company Secretary’ for an overstay at an NCP car park. 

The NTK includes ANPR camera footage and was dated 27 days after the alleged overstay (received 30 days after). 

Whilst not referencing POFA 2012 explicitly, the NTK does otherwise meet the requirements of para 9.

Am I right in my interpretation that under POFA 2012 NCP cannot legitimately hold my wife responsible as the ‘keeper’ of the vehicle because the NTK was sent well after the 14 day period? And if not bothering to use/reference POFA 2012, NCP cannot hold my wife responsible for the alleged overstay and resultant costs regardless of the timeframe? We have had no interaction with NPC at this stage.

not quite sure whether she should have received a NTH rather than a NTK, but hoping the NTK POFA timeframe makes that irrelevant either way.

thank you.

Gr1pr

Motability hold the V5c but the hirer is named as the RK on it, so ignore the company secretary part, even though it is a hire or lease vehicle , does it have her name and address on it. ?

Post redacted pictures of both sides of the PCN and lets see it, no personal information,vno VRM, no PCN reference, but leave the rest on show including all dates and times 

Plan A is always the best option for private parking charges, a complaint to the landowner to try to get a cancellation, but NCP tend to have a long term lease on their car parks, so sometimes they are policing their own leased land 

Leftynotreety

My wife’s name is in the address bar, under company secretary. Pics as below I hope!

Fruitcake

The PoFA dates apply to to the original NTK sent to the lease company, who will have passed the lessee's details to NCP. The latter will then have sent the NTH to the lessee, your wife. There are no PoFA restrictions on dates for a NTH.
The fact it has been called a NTK by NCP may be an attempt to confuse the less savvy, but since the lessee is the day to day keeper, it doesn't matter.
Ignore their lies about the keeper being liable.

The lessee should appeal as hirer/lessee using the relevant edna basher template letter from the NEWBIES sticky Announcement. There are three to choose from but the correct one should be easy to identify.

Leftynotreety

Thanks for the clarification re the 14 day window and PoFa. I did look at the Edna Basher template responses, but was a bit unsure about whether they applied to Motability vehicles - I read another post that mentioned the V5C includes both the lessee and notability keeper details for them?

was also a bit confused after reading this from the BPA re compliance:

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library%202016/Motability_Operations_advice_for_BPA_members_-_May_2017.pdf

I have personally some years back received a PCN for a private lease vehicle and successfully followed the course of action outlined in the sticky thread. So it’s the same for a Motabiliy lease?

Fruitcake

I don't know how that would work with two different addresses on the V5C. If the lessee is the registered keeper, then they would have the V5C in their possession. You could ask Motobility, and if the lessee's name is on the document, you should be given a copy.

Since the NTK received by the keeper is not PoFA compliant, the lessee could appeal using the template in blue text from the NEWBIES, and add a one liner that since it was issued to late to hold the keeper liable, NCP should cancel now to save them money and the embarrassment of losing at PoPLA.

If they choose that option, they should also complain about the lies in the NTK where NCP have said the keeper can be liable, then follow it up with a complaint to the BPA once NCP have whitewashed everthing.

In any case, complaints should still be made to the landowner and the lessee's MP, and include a point that the NTK carries an untrue statement, a lie.

Leftynotreety

Thanks for the reply. 

The dual registration of the the car was mentioned in the above link;

’Motability Scheme cars are dual registered - the Scheme customer and the Motability fleet code’

The V5 is retained by motability - but the lessee can request a copy.

So, NCP have not complied with POFA in establishing keeper liability because they have either;

1. Missed the 14 day window to issue the NTK as per para 2.

or

2. Failed to meet the NtH requirements as set out in para 13/14 of sch 4.

Route 1 fail if my wife is the registered keeper, Route 2 fail if they went to Motability first?

Apologies for labouring the issue but still a bit confused as to which route to take. 

Gr1pr

 I did mention that the motability vehicle has the keeper as the registered keeper, along with the owner which is motability. I never received the V5c when I had a Motability vehicle, it stayed with them as owner, but the other paperwork always came to me. The only time I got it was when I bought the vehicle from Motability 

Its headed as Notice to Keeper, because she is the contracted keeper , ( ignore that company secretary part. ) I would suggest that without revealing who was driving, its treated as if the keeper is the registered keeper, which should mean that its not compliant with POFA according to the dates , 27 days being longer than the 14 days but not long enough for DVLA lookup following a windscreen PCN, but NCP tend to use ANPR anyway on their paid for car parks like in Manchester city centre

But the core allegation is that the driver was on a pay to park NCP car park and didn't purchase enough time to cover the period onsite. Nothing seems to have been mentioned so far about the actual alleged breach itself, just speculation over POFA 

I suppose that as far as appealing it goes, its use a keeper appeal, possibly one that says that NCP failed to comply with POFA, but without revealing who was driving.  NCP will reject it anyway and issue a Popla code 

Bear in mind that if the driver is revealed and pursued, not paying for enough time could mean a win for NCP, sometimes parking companies are due money when drivers make mistakes, especially paying for say 6 hours and staying for nearly 7 hours, or whatever it was here , its an underpayment, not an overstay 

What do the signs say. ?

How long was paid for. ?

What was the total time onsite. ?

Coupon-mad

Leftynotreety said:

Thanks for the reply. 

The dual registration of the the car was mentioned in the above link;

’Motability Scheme cars are dual registered - the Scheme customer and the Motability fleet code’

The V5 is retained by motability - but the lessee can request a copy.

So, NCP have not complied with POFA in establishing keeper liability because they have either;

1. Missed the 14 day window to issue the NTK as per para 2.

or

2. Failed to meet the NtH requirements as set out in para 13/14 of sch 4.

Route 1 fail if my wife is the registered keeper, Route 2 fail if they went to Motability first?

Apologies for labouring the issue but still a bit confused as to which route to take. 

I think that's a good understanding.

I don't think NCP have written to Motability first.  I think  point 1 applies.  Late NTK and they should never have used POFA wording telling the recipient that they will be liable.

Leftynotreety

Hi thanks for the input. The driver has not been revealed and there are more than one persons insured to drive the car. My wife has only had the NTK for less than a week and won’t be intending to miss any deadlines.

The overstay was significant. There were problems logging into the NCP app, wherein the cost for the full day is £7.95. The payment was made via the onsite machine instead - but the pricing structure is different. £7.90 was paid under the assumption this too afforded a stay for the full day (noting the 5p difference). However, the full day costs £9.95 via the onsite machine, and £7.90 only pays for a few hours. Signage presumably makes this clear around the site, but it is not clear, I understand, from the machine itself at payment stage. 

If the 14 day window has been missed under POFA, I thought it was pretty clear that the keeper can’t be held responsible and was under no compunction to reveal who was driving. Is this not something POPLA would rule against NCP on regardless of the overstay length/signage etc?

thanks.

Fruitcake

It doesn't matter why the NTK was issued, it's not PoFA compliant because it arrived too late for the keeper to be liable. Nothing else matters.

I wasn't aware of the dual registration aspect, hence my previous incorrect suggestions to appeal as hirer/lessee. Every day is a school day on this forum.

The keeper named on the NTK should simply appeal using the template in blue text and add the one liner I mentioned earlier about no keeper liability. If NCP are daft enough to issue a PoPLA code instead of cancelling, then the keeper will simply make a PoPLA appeal using all the standard points from the third post of the NEWBIES, starting with non-PoFA compliant NTK therefore no keeper liability as point 1.

PoPLA codes last at least 32 days, but don't miss the appeal deadline. If NCP don't cancel after the initial appeal stage, then post the draft PoPLA appeal here for checking before it is submitted.