Date of “issue”

Gr1pr

They do not have to follow POFA at all, its not mandatory to comply with POFA, they can choose to ignore POFA completely, at which point they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the PCN to the keeper 

Maybe POFA should have been made to be mandatory in order to enforce compliance against a keeper, but parliament did not decide to, so POFA is optional for each and every private parking company on relevant land only ( on non relevant land schedule 4 does not apply, nor does POFA apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland either. )

If I understand your last post correctly, we are all wrong, the companies have been doing this incorrectly for the last 12 years and only you are right. ?  ( Good luck with that argument if it gets to a court claim and if you are going to defend on that basis. )

If parking companies had to include the posting date, I have never seen it since POFA arrived, I even quoted the paragraph that states that it is presumed given,  9.4(B). ( Not delivered. ) On the date of issue on the NTK PCN letter, 8th March , 28 days later was 5th April, so they are invoking keeper liability from the day after, day 29, the 6th April or later , probably from 10th April, day 29 from the delivery date , or anytime after that date , because the appeal deadline was the 9th April as Ldast mentioned , its up to you to work it out 

Incident date, 2nd March , Issue date, Friday 8th March , presumed posting date, Friday 8th March , presumed delivered ( date of service. ) Tuesday 12th March (  does not refer to being put through the letterbox or placed in your hand. )

14 days deadline to pay the settlement figure based on the discount 22nd March 

28 days to pay the full settlement figure with no discount deadline,  5th April 

Latest date to appeal based on presumed delivery date is calculated as 9th April 

Earliest POFA starting date for keeper liability to be invoked, 10th April onwards 

Their payment dates are on the front of the NTK PCN letter, but their POFA paragraphs about liability are on the back and as I clearly stated earlier, you have not shown us a redacted picture of the back of the NTK PCN letter, nothing at all on the front, there never is with their NTK PCN letters

Things to consider 

Payment deadlines, appeal window deadlines, POFA keeper liability start date

Let us know we are all incorrect, with proof, if you win in court with that written judgment , not before 

You posted asking for opinions, you have had opinions, those opinions are not wrong until a court of law says so , not one opinion has agreed with you

fisherjim

"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".

You are wrong they don't have to follow PoFA, they do (at least in theory) have to follow their ATA's COP to remain accredited if not they are out and cannot access DVLA records.

Anyway you know best so carry on with it!

game_player

Gr1pr said:

They do not have to follow POFA at all, its not mandatory to comply with POFA, they can choose to ignore POFA completely, at which point they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the PCN to the keeper 

Maybe POFA should have been made to be mandatory in order to enforce compliance against a keeper, but parliament did not decide to, so POFA is optional for each and every private parking company on relevant land only ( on non relevant land schedule 4 does not apply, nor does POFA apply in Scotland and Northern Ireland either. )

If I understand your last post correctly, we are all wrong, the companies have been doing this incorrectly for the last 12 years and only you are right. ?  ( Good luck with that argument if it gets to a court claim and if you are going to defend on that basis. )

If parking companies had to include the posting date, I have never seen it since POFA arrived, I even quoted the paragraph that states that it is presumed given,  9.4(B). ( Not delivered. ) On the date of issue on the NTK PCN letter, 8th March , 28 days later was 5th April, so they are invoking keeper liability from the day after, day 29, the 6th April or later , probably from 10th April, day 29 from the delivery date , or anytime after that date , because the appeal deadline was the 9th April as Ldast mentioned , its up to you to work it out 

Incident date, 2nd March , Issue date, Friday 8th March , presumed posting date, Friday 8th March , presumed delivered ( date of service. ) Tuesday 12th March (  does not refer to being put through the letterbox or placed in your hand. )

14 days deadline to pay the settlement figure based on the discount 22nd March 

28 days to pay the full settlement figure with no discount deadline,  5th April 

Latest date to appeal based on presumed delivery date is calculated as 9th April 

Earliest POFA starting date for keeper liability to be invoked, 10th April onwards 

Their payment dates are on the front of the NTK PCN letter, but their POFA paragraphs about liability are on the back and as I clearly stated earlier, you have not shown us a redacted picture of the back of the NTK PCN letter, nothing at all on the front, there never is with their NTK PCN letters

Things to consider 

Payment deadlines, appeal window deadlines, POFA keeper liability start date

Let us know we are all incorrect, with proof, if you win in court with that written judgment , not before 

You posted asking for opinions, you have had opinions, those opinions are not wrong until a court of law says so , not one opinion has agreed with you

I didn’t actually ask for “opinions”. I asked whether anyone had any experience of the point being raised about the use of the word “issue” to mean the date of sending (by post). Even if all companies were using “issued” to mean “sent” (and clearly some are using the specific term “date of sending” as evidenced by photos in this group)  it doesn’t follow that it complies with the statutory requirements.  If a legal point is taken on the issue, then the court will apply the law (ie the statute) to the facts. They will not just say “nobody’s ever raised this point before therefore it must be bogus”. Novel points about statutory interpretation are frequently taken by the courts. 

If anyone has any experience of the point being taken that “date of issue” does not mean “date of sending” then I would like to know how that went - if it failed, why did it fail? What was the court’s reasoning?  If nobody has ever come across the point being taken, then of course, nobody is in a position to provide that information.

The NtK must include the date of sending. Where does the presumption that it was posted on the date that it was issued come from? 

BTW I am not disputing that on the back of the letter it does refer to 28 days from the date notice was “given” and does say that is presumed to be 28 days from the date it was “issued”. But that just takes me back to my original point. 

LDast

You may want to check that the 28 days is from the date it was "issued" or "given". Two different dates. A notice is "deemed" given, two working days after it was "issued" or sent, assuming you can prove that "issued" and "sent" are different. These days, most operators use a bulk mailing consolidator and there are firms that provide technology for the NtK to be printed and mailed on the same day.

When it comes to arguing whether "date of issue" means "date of sending", I think you will find that you will not get far with that argument. Yes, there is never any "proof" of posting and unless the notice is sent in an envelope that is postmarked, there is nothing else to prove otherwise. A judge would likely decide that, on the balance of probabilities, the notice was sent the same day it was "issued".

You will need to try and get the law changed in order to force these scammers to use proven methods of evidencing the date of sending. Good luck with that.

Coupon-mad

But the POFA isn't mandatory.

The DVLA confirmed that and lets PPCs operate a 2 tier system.

Some are POFA and some are not.

Gr1pr

game_player said:

 s

The NtK must include the date of sending.

Where does the presumption that it was posted on the date that it was issued come from? 

BTW I am not disputing that on the back of the letter it does refer to 28 days from the date notice was “given” and does say that is presumed to be 28 days from the date it was “issued”. But that just takes me back to my original point. 

Where exactly does it state that in the legislation. ? 

( Parking Eye tend to be the industry leaders in this field and their POFA compliant NTK doesn't mention any date of sending, on the front or back, I haven't seen any such additions on theirs, but some others do, like Bank . )

Plus the legislation is not mandatory 

Judges will use the balance of probabilities, if its normal practice then they will accept it as a standard, regardless, unless specific mandatory legislation or a mandatory CoP require it.  Many will focus on did it arrive in time ? Like we do , section 9(4)(b)

It would be a good idea to have standard templates for all, that include mandatory boxes to remove confusion, but we can only work with what there is, not wishful thinking 

The new CoP may have standardisation when it arrives next year, but it doesn't help your case 

game_player

Gr1pr said:

game_player said:

 s

The NtK must include the date of sending.

Where does the presumption that it was posted on the date that it was issued come from? 

BTW I am not disputing that on the back of the letter it does refer to 28 days from the date notice was “given” and does say that is presumed to be 28 days from the date it was “issued”. But that just takes me back to my original point. 

Where exactly does it state that in the legislation. ? 

( Parking Eye tend to be the industry leaders in this field and their POFA compliant NTK doesn't mention any date of sending, on the front or back, I haven't seen any such additions on theirs, but some others do, like Bank . )

Plus the legislation is not mandatory 

Judges will use the balance of probabilities, if its normal practice then they will accept it as a standard, regardless, unless specific mandatory legislation or a mandatory CoP require it.  Many will focus on did it arrive in time ? Like we do , section 9(4)(b)

It would be a good idea to have standard templates for all, that include mandatory boxes to remove confusion, but we can only work with what there is, not wishful thinking 

The new CoP may have standardisation when it arrives next year, but it doesn't help your case 

It’s academic now as I went down to Toby, as advised on this site, and they promptly cancelled the charge 😃

But, FWIW, the legislation may not be mandatory to proceed against the driver, but it is mandatory if the creditor wants to transfer liabilty to the keeper.  The parking operator (euro car parks) acknowledges this within the notice: “This notice is given to you under Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 POFA and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act”.  POPLA also acknowledges it:  “Provided that the required conditions [i.e. those set out at schedule 4] are met, the parking operator has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle”.

The recovery is based on contract law and the contract is between the driver and the parking operator.  So it’s only POFA which enables the creditor to claim against someone who wasn’t a party to the contract. At least, I can’t see any basis for allowing it without some specific statutory provision, although admittedly I’m not a civil lawyer.

“Issue” is simply not synonymous with ‘“sent’. My passport has a “date of issue” written on it, but there’s absolutely no reason to presume that this is exactly the same as the date it was sent to me.

I appreciate the time you’ve taken in responding here but I just think you’re wrong to assume that because nobody has raised the argument before therefore it must be bogus.  Yesterday the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales gave his ruling on train fare prosecutions which found that since 2018 train companies have wrongly been prosecuting people for non-payment of fares and this means that over 74,000 people have been wrongly convicted due to a procedural error.  

PolePosition2

Regarding Date of issue of PCN NTK what is correct in the following scenario.

You receive a blue Privacy Notice on the windscreen of your vehicle and its dated 1/9/24 and then about a week later you receive in the post a PCN NTK with an issue date (posted) 7/9/24.

Further down the line the Claimant (parking company) serve court papers on you but in the Particulars of claim (POC) it states that the PCN issue date (posted) was 1/9/24.

Technically, the PCN wasn't issued on 1/9/24 only a Privacy Notice so are they wrong in treating the issue date of the PCN as the same date as the Privacy Notice?

Le_Kirk

PolePosition2 said:

Regarding Date of issue of PCN NTK what is correct in the following scenario.

You receive a blue Privacy Notice on the windscreen of your vehicle and its dated 1/9/24 and then about a week later you receive in the post a PCN NTK with an issue date (posted) 7/9/24.

Further down the line the Claimant (parking company) serve court papers on you but in the Particulars of claim (POC) it states that the PCN issue date (posted) was 1/9/24.

Technically, the PCN wasn't issued on 1/9/24 only a Privacy Notice so are they wrong in treating the issue date of the PCN as the same date as the Privacy Notice?

Did you mean to post that question on one of your three open threads?