NCP threatening prosecution. Is this new?

hirersezn

I have just received a NtH from NCP which is not PoFa compliant for charging at Stratford International. 

In one of the paragraphs they write: "Failure to pay may see the amount of the Penalty to increase and further action taken against you, including prosecution via the magistrates Court"

Since when did PPCs or NCP start using prosecution in their letters, or is this very new?

Coupon-mad

I have seen that threatened before but they won't.  Is it a Penalty Notice?

hirersezn

Yes, Penalty notice to hirer. 

Can I still use Edna's template to appeal? They mention in the letter that the penalty notice is issued under Clause 14 of railway byelaws.

"I appeal as hirer. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to me because your notice does not comply with the requirements for hirer liability set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Specifically, you have failed to enclose with your purported notice to hirer the documents required to be enclosed by POFA paragraphs 13 and 14. 

I require you to cancel your purported Notice to Hirer or to issue a POPLA Code so that POPLA can order you to cancel it."

KeithP

hirersezn said:

Yes, Penalty notice to hirer. 

Can I still use Edna's template to appeal? They mention in the letter that the penalty notice is issued under Clause 14 of railway byelaws.

"I appeal as hirer. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. You cannot transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to me because your notice does not comply with the requirements for hirer liability set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). Specifically, you have failed to enclose with your purported notice to hirer the documents required to be enclosed by POFA paragraphs 13 and 14. 

I require you to cancel your purported Notice to Hirer or to issue a POPLA Code so that POPLA can order you to cancel it."

Because this car park is covered by Railway Byelaws, for the purposes of PoFA it is not 'relevant land'.

In other words, PoFA has no relevance in this car park, so your mention of paras 13 and 14 is out of place.

Castle

hirersezn said:

Yes, Penalty notice to hirer. 

That should confuse POPLA since they always insist that the RK is the Owner and Clause 14 only talks about the Owner being possibly liable.

hirersezn

KeithP said:

Because this car park is covered by Railway Byelaws, for the purposes of PoFA it is not 'relevant land'.

In other words, PoFA has no relevance in this car park, so your mention of paras 13 and 14 is out of place.

I see.. How would I go about appealing this as hirer?

Coupon-mad

The way @Castle said.

hirersezn

Coupon-mad said:

The way @Castle said.

I don’t understand.

Here's my draft:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Parking Charge Notice [XXXXXX]: Vehicle Registration [XXXXXXX]

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by National Car Parks Ltd (“NCP”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either offer me a POPLA code or cancel the charge.

Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Yours faithfully,
My name

hirersezn

Any advise please on my draft.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

If that's first appeal it is OK.

hirersezn

My appeal has been rejected.

Please can someone guide me to a similar popla draft OR would this be the same as any other non pofa pcn*?

*My points summarised would be:

1. failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant

2. operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

3. No evidence of Landowner Authority

4. Insufficient and unclear signage