What should be my next step (PCN)?

Parking_Rage765

Why do they insist that the information comes from me when she has admitted it and given her name and address?

Grizebeck

Parking_Rage765 said:

Why do they insist that the information comes from me when she has admitted it and given her name and address?

just the way they do things
now follow all the advise given, this should now be the end of the matter unless you get a court claim , please follow coupon mads advice going forward

Coupon-mad

Parking_Rage765 said:

Why do they insist that the information comes from me when she has admitted it and given her name and address?

Because they want to confuse & scare you and extract money from you.

They are also not the sharpest tools in the box.  NPE is a notorious thug ex-clamper firm. That lack of brain cells 'outrageous scam' (Hansard, 2018) mentality seems not to have changed. 

They know who was driving so there is no keeper liability now, in this case. Given that legal fact - which seems to have passed them by - obviously let it play out in YOUR name!

NPE are not very litigious at all so nothing will happen except the usual threatograms (spare us, please...) but if they do try in future, you are bulletproof so do not nominate your wife.

Sit tight. Enjoy life.

Tell them if you move house within 6 years. 

LDast

Just playing devils advocate, but as a matter of interest, how was liability transferred from the keeper to the driver? The keeper simply passing the notice to the driver and the driver them appealing in their own name is not enough. The keeper was supposed to pass the drivers details to the operator as well as passing the NtK to the driver.

Liability is not transferred until the operator confirms with the keeper that they have received the drivers details and give them a reasonable amount of time, usually 14 days, where they will get back to the keeper if there are any questions. The operator then has to issue a new PCN to the named driver.

In this case, whilst these ex-clamper scammers may not litigate, they can still hold the keeper liable as liability was not transferred as instructed in the NtK. We often tell victims that someone cannot simply appeal or do anything unless they've received a PCN in their own name. The OP simply saying that their wife appealed in her own name, whilst admitting to being the driver, has not transferred the liability from the keeper in the correct manner and as the NtK was PoFA compliant (was it?), the keeper is still liable.

Thoughts? 

Coupon-mad

I disagree. The driver's details were known.

Grizebeck

LDast said:

Just playing devils advocate, but as a matter of interest, how was liability transferred from the keeper to the driver? The keeper simply passing the notice to the driver and the driver them appealing in their own name is not enough. The keeper was supposed to pass the drivers details to the operator as well as passing the NtK to the driver.

Liability is not transferred until the operator confirms with the keeper that they have received the drivers details and give them a reasonable amount of time, usually 14 days, where they will get back to the keeper if there are any questions. The operator then has to issue a new PCN to the named driver.

In this case, whilst these ex-clamper scammers may not litigate, they can still hold the keeper liable as liability was not transferred as instructed in the NtK. We often tell victims that someone cannot simply appeal or do anything unless they've received a PCN in their own name. The OP simply saying that their wife appealed in her own name, whilst admitting to being the driver, has not transferred the liability from the keeper in the correct manner and as the NtK was PoFA compliant (was it?), the keeper is still liable.

Thoughts? 

No that's not correct. When a driver appeals confirming they were the driver. Then pofa has been satisfied with regards to Keeper liability as the driver is known.
There's more then one way to skin a cat
No other parking company I know has any issue with this

1505grandad

In first post  -  "We have searched our records and cannot locate correspondence from you providing the full name and service address of the driver at the time of the parking event."

(Also playing da)  -  Just saying (as much as it pains me)  -  are they not following the V9 IPC CoP:-

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC Code of PracticeV9 V3.pdf

"7.4 If a Motorist receives a postal notification, and they think it has been incorrectly issued

they should:

7.4.1 If they are not the Driver:

7.4.1.1 Identify the Driver by providing the operator with the name and address of the person driving

the Vehicle at the time of the Parking Event. Details of how to do this will be on the notice."

Coupon-mad

Yep but the law trumps that.  The PoFA Schedule 4 says none of that. 

The driver is KNOWN. There is no 'wrong door' for that information to become known.

Ergo, no right to keeper liability. PPCs can't put their fingers in their ears and chant lalala.