Date of “issue”

game_player

I wish I’d found this resource earlier! I’ve now been through 1st appeal and 2nd (POPLA) appeal and am now at Debt Recovery Plus 2nd threatening letter stage.
My ground of appeal has always been that the PCN LTK does not include the date it was sent by post. It does refer to a “date of issue” (08/03/2024) but that isn’t what the legislation says. “Issue” does not mean the same as “send by post”. It could mean the date it was printed off. Or it could mean the date the notice is [presumed to have been] “given”. In their notice of rejection for my first appeal, Euro Car Parks use the word “issue” to refer to the date when the parking took place!

In fact that is what they seem to mean, because all the other dates in the notice seem to count my liability as beginning to run from 08 March. So the 28 days for payment is said to expire on 05/04/24. But for that to be the date on which the 28 days expires, the NTK would need to have been  “given” to me on 08/03/24, which would mean that can’t possibly be the day it was sent to me by post.
So either they have failed to comply with para 9(2)(i) by failing to say when it was sent by post, or they have failed to comply with para 9(2)(f) by failing to notify of the (correct) period within which I must pay.
The back story is that I wasn’t the driver but I was the passenger. I made a mistake in entering the reg number (we have a second car and I put in the number for the other car). It was a Toby Carvery and we were bona fide customers. (I didn’t know until I’d already lodged my first appeal that you can usually get a reduction on the penalty if you explain this.)
The date of parking was 02/03/24. We went away on 15/03/24 at which point no PCN NTK had arrived. I found it when we got back on 24/03/24 and according to the notice, I was already outside the discount period. That was what started me looking into all the dates.
Has anyone else taken this point on the notice talking about “date of issue” or discrepancies between the dates on the notice? 

I’ve never made any complaint to Toby Carvery. Is it still worth trying that?

Gr1pr

Always, always try to get a cancellation by the business or landowner or managing agent for the site, known on here as plan A, should have been done from the get go, but never too late 

The incident date was 2/3/2024 , the NTK PCN letter was issued on the 8/3/2024, presumed to be posted on the same day. The presumed delivery day is 2 business days later, 12th March 2024 , so that is the presumed service day,  served upon you by receipt of the PCN in the post, it had to arrive within the 14 days from the incident, so by day 15, to try to invoke Keeper liability 

The 14 days is irrelevant, that is the early settlement figure and time period, your coming back from holiday date is irrelevant to the pcn or legislation 

Coupon-mad

It's not a penalty.

Just get Toby Carvery to cancel it. 

game_player

Gr1pr said:

Always, always try to get a cancellation by the business or landowner or managing agent for the site, known on here as plan A, should have been done from the get go, but never too late 

The incident date was 2/3/2024 , the NTK PCN letter was issued on the 8/3/2024, presumed to be posted on the same day. The presumed delivery day is 2 business days later, 12th March 2924 , so that is the presumed service day,  served upon you by receipt of the PCN in the post, it had to arrive within the 14 days from the incident, so by day 15, to try to invoke Keeper liability 

The 14 days is irrelevant, that is the early settlement figure and time period, your coming back from holiday date is irrelevant to the pcn or legislation 

Hi. Thanks for reply. 

But it isn’t the 14 days that I’m relying on. It’s the 28 days which is significant because they are obliged to tell me when the 28 days is up (para 9(2)(f).) If the date they give is not a date 28 days after the date the notice is given then they haven’t complied with para 9(2)(f). 

If the notice was given on 12/03/24 then the 28 days was up on 09/04/24, not 05/04/24, as stated on the notice. 

I only mentioned the holiday and the expiry of the 14 day discount by way of background. It’s not part of my case, just an explanation of why I studied the dates so closely. 

But I will get on to Toby Carvery. 

game_player

game_player said:

Gr1pr said:

Always, always try to get a cancellation by the business or landowner or managing agent for the site, known on here as plan A, should have been done from the get go, but never too late 

The incident date was 2/3/2024 , the NTK PCN letter was issued on the 8/3/2024, presumed to be posted on the same day. The presumed delivery day is 2 business days later, 12th March 2924 , so that is the presumed service day,  served upon you by receipt of the PCN in the post, it had to arrive within the 14 days from the incident, so by day 15, to try to invoke Keeper liability 

The 14 days is irrelevant, that is the early settlement figure and time period, your coming back from holiday date is irrelevant to the pcn or legislation 

Hi. Thanks for reply. 

But it isn’t the 14 days that I’m relying on. It’s the 28 days which is significant because they are obliged to tell me when the 28 days is up (para 9(2)(f).) If the date they give is not a date 28 days after the date the notice is given then they haven’t complied with para 9(2)(f). 

If the notice was given on 12/03/24 then the 28 days was up on 09/04/24, not 05/04/24, as stated on the notice. 

I only mentioned the holiday and the expiry of the 14 day discount by way of background. It’s not part of my case, just an explanation of why I studied the dates so closely. 

But I will get on to Toby Carvery. 

Sorry - 28 days up on 10/04/24

Gr1pr

They have to give the keeper 28 days to appeal the PCN, from the issue date shown on the PCN, the sooner they issue it, the earlier the deadline, but it's always 28 days from issue to appeal expiry deadline. ( Even if they are not relying on POFA 2012 , like say Smart Parking, ). the private parking company still has to give the keeper 28 days to appeal it, or to name the driver, before escalating it 

They work from the issue date as the given date,  the 8th in this case, everyone does, not the presumed given date of service by post which in this case was the 12th

KeithP

Gr1pr said:

They work from the issue date as the given date,  the 8th in this case, everyone does, not the presumed given date of service by post which in this case was the 12th

How are they allowed to do that?

POFA 9(2)(f) says...



Clearly 9(2)(f) says "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given".

Gr1pr

My reply is talking about the appeal date that they all have to give, it says so near the beginning of my reply, many dont even bother with POFA 2012 , which states what you said above, in order to try to apply keeper liability and probably says so on the back of the NTK PCN letter above 

The OP seems to be stating that the GIVEN date was the 12th, the presumed delivery date, given is mentioned in POFA para 9 but in 9 (4) , not what they copied and pasted 

9 (4) The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

The OP didn't mention section 9(4), I have never seen an NTK PCN letter that mentions a presumed delivery date of 4 or 5 days later , that day after the given day would then be the 13th march, the day after delivery day as given day 

I interpreted it as being given on the posting date which is presumed to be the issue date , not the received date, or the day after, or any other date, that received inference is not mentioned at all, only the actual word,  sending 

They have not shared the POFA warnings listed on the NTK PCN letter either , but they appear to be querying several items including the wording that we haven't seen above , but a POFA compliant NTK PCN letter is shown in the following link 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80429061/#Comment_80429061

I cannot see any problems with the NTK PCN letter, especially if the back matches the one in the link which it says they have changed to issuing from last year 

Jackson Yamba clarified these topics in the UKPC case  ( issue date= presumed posting date = given date. )

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/uk-parking-control-limiteds-oversight-in-adhering-to-the-28-day-statutory-period-as-outlined-under-pofa-resulted-in-a-295-costs-for-unreasonable-conduct

LDast

game_player said:

But it isn’t the 14 days that I’m relying on. It’s the 28 days which is significant because they are obliged to tell me when the 28 days is up (para 9(2)(f).) If the date they give is not a date 28 days after the date the notice is given then they haven’t complied with para 9(2)(f). 

If the notice was given on 12/03/24 then the 28 days was up on 09/04/24, not 05/04/24, as stated on the notice. 

"They" are not "obliged" to tell you when the 28 days to appeal is up. It is for you to calculate. It is a simple calculation. According to the BPA CoP at 23.1d "You must ensure that a parking charge notice informs the recipient that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected."

As for PoFA, the NtK was "given" within the timescale required. The latest date for an appeal was 28 days after the NtK was given which was 9th April 2024,

fisherjim

You blew some of the usual appeal points by concentrating on blind alleys.

You obviously saw signage and the keypad as you entered the wrong VRN so the signage arguments were out of the window, major keying error was what you were looking for, easy manual check, no VRN on their ANPR system for the vehicle you entered on the keypad. But Toby as they engaged the contractor can cancel any time.

You will not find the word "penalty" in any correspondence, you have an invoice nothing more.

You seem to have partially researched private parking tickets and came up with time line theories and jumped on dates, with little thought about much else, when there were better appeal points in the COP.

I wouldn't waste time with all that, get down to the Toby and get them to cancel it.

game_player

LDast said:

game_player said:

But it isn’t the 14 days that I’m relying on. It’s the 28 days which is significant because they are obliged to tell me when the 28 days is up (para 9(2)(f).) If the date they give is not a date 28 days after the date the notice is given then they haven’t complied with para 9(2)(f). 

If the notice was given on 12/03/24 then the 28 days was up on 09/04/24, not 05/04/24, as stated on the notice. 

"They" are not "obliged" to tell you when the 28 days to appeal is up. It is for you to calculate. It is a simple calculation. According to the BPA CoP at 23.1d "You must ensure that a parking charge notice informs the recipient that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected."

As for PoFA, the NtK was "given" within the timescale required. The latest date for an appeal was 28 days after the NtK was given which was 9th April 2024,

It is the PoFA that they have to follow, not the BPA CoP. The latter is guidance only and the Statute must always take precedence.  The PoFA is very clear that ALL applicable conditions under schedule 4 must be met before the creditor has a right to recover parking charges.
Para 9(f) requires the creditor to warn the keeper that the creditor will have the right to recover unpaid charges if they are not paid “after 28 days beginning with the day after that on which notice is given” 
This is not a simple calculation. It requires in depth knowledge of the provisions of schedule 4 so that you understand what is meant by “given”. To do that, you need to know when the NtK was sent, which is why the NtK should plainly refer to the date it was sent and not use other non statutory terms such as “issued”. Then you need to work out the working days so as to arrive at the date it is presumed to have been given. 

If you accept ( which I don’t, but just for the sake of argument) that the date of issue is the date of sending, then the NtK should be presumed to have been given to me on the 12 March. The 28 days did not start to run until the day after 12 March, which means that the relevant date for the purposes of 9(f) would be 10 April, not 9 April as you have calculated and not 5 April as stated in the NtK. So both of you got this “simple” calculation wrong. Parliament did not create these rules for its own amusement.  The purpose was obviously to ensure that the creditor provided information to the keeper which would ensure transparency in its own processses and would fully inform the keeper of the position re their indebtedness. 

There can be no excuse for the creditor giving me wrong information about the day on which they say I become liable to enforcement by them. 

The date for appeal is irrelevant here. It’s simply about compliance with 9(f). 

However, as I have already said, I do intend to try to get Toby Carvery to cancel the charge.