Manor Parking - have I understood the advice?

Chickenwings23

As the registered keeper I’ve received an NTK. Seems that they take issue with the parking ticket only having part of the car registration - even though the machine spat out a ticket before the full reg could be entered.

I appealed to them (before discovering this forum, silly me) to say I had bought a ticket. I have the ticket. They have confirmed they have found it on their system and - whilst they have rejected the appeal - they have ever so generously offered to charge less as a result.

I have not indicated who was driving the car, just who bought the ticket.

Other than making a complaint to landowner Medipharma UK Limited, I think the advice in the Newbies thread is to send the following email (I’ve slightly modified it) to them. Is that right? 

And it also looks like the NTK is non-POFA, so no keeper liability?

——

Per all earlier correspondence, I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

(Keeper details….)

——-

Thanks for reading - any advice welcome!

Gr1pr

If you indicated that you were the driver, then POFA goes into the nearest bin, it doesn't assist an admitted driver, so driver liability may apply , they will assume that the person who bought the parking receipt was driving 

You cannot appeal it twice, so what was their rejection reply ?

Chickenwings23

Gr1pr said:

If you indicated that you were the driver, then POFA goes into the nearest bin, it doesn't assist an admitted driver, so driver liability may apply , they will assume that the person who bought the parking receipt was driving 

You cannot appeal it twice, so what was their rejection reply ?

I’m not sure I understand the first part - buying a ticket doesn’t make someone the driver. There’s been no admission of who the driver was. Who will make the assumption that it’s the same person: the PPC?

Below is their reply. Thanks very much for taking a look!

reply:

Lottie Road Car Park is private land, there are numerous tariff boards which inform drivers that payment is required and also detail the terms and conditions of the site. It is the driver's responsibility to read the terms and conditions of the site and pay the required tariff for their stay. There is also a pay by phone option available on this site.

Having noted the contents of your appeal and reviewing the facts, we are satisfied that the pcn was issued correctly and your appeal is rejected.

thank you for your email,
I have rechecked the system and I think I have found you but it appears to be only a partial car reg and not the full reg as required and stated on the machines and this means that the pcn was issued correctly

I can offer you a £20 early settlement figure, if you would like this option then please let me know within 5 working days of this email and I will adjust the system for you,


If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service IAS). In order to appeal, you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued. Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this email. Please visit www.theias.org for full details. Please bear in mind that the reduced amount of £60 is valid for 14 days as stated on your initial pcn. After this time, the pcn will increase to £100.

Gr1pr

Yes, they are and will assume that the keeper and driver are the same person, especially if you used I instead of "the driver" when you appealed it , I don't think that you denied being the driver in your appeal ?

They did what I expected, their rejection offered the £20 keying error offer listed in the joint BPA + IPC code of practice  which is instead of the full £100 charge on the PCN and signs

Grizebeck

It's a take it or leave it option for £20

LDast

In your initial appeal, you should have simply told them that you are not obliged to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. As their NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold you, the keeper liable and they should go chase the driver.

As long as you did not imply you were the driver, then you are OK. However, by not pointing out their inability to hold you liable, you have possibly left the door open. Unless we can see exactly what you wrote in your appeal to the operator, it is difficult to know.

Unfortunately, the operator is an IPC member which means that the chance of an IAS appeal being successful is about 4%. It is up to you if you want to try. If not or unsuccessful, just weather the useless debt collector letters and wait and see if they bother to issue a Letter of Claim and subsequent claim. They may or they may not. Even if they do, they are unlikely to actually take it all the way. They are simply hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will capitulate and pay up once the threat of litigation seems real.

For now, have a thorough rad of the Newbies/FAQ thread.

Chickenwings23

LDast said:

In your initial appeal, you should have simply told them that you are not obliged to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking company. As their NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA, they cannot hold you, the keeper liable and they should go chase the driver.

As long as you did not imply you were the driver, then you are OK. However, by not pointing out their inability to hold you liable, you have possibly left the door open. Unless we can see exactly what you wrote in your appeal to the operator, it is difficult to know.

Unfortunately, the operator is an IPC member which means that the chance of an IAS appeal being successful is about 4%. It is up to you if you want to try. If not or unsuccessful, just weather the useless debt collector letters and wait and see if they bother to issue a Letter of Claim and subsequent claim. They may or they may not. Even if they do, they are unlikely to actually take it all the way. They are simply hoping you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who will capitulate and pay up once the threat of litigation seems real.

For now, have a thorough rad of the Newbies/FAQ thread.

Thanks, so here is the initial message sent to appeal. Sorry about the terrible formatting, on phone and can’t get it to change:

	Hi, received
	the PCN just
	now (10/8/24).
	I paid cash for
	the parking
	ticket and it
	covers the
	relevant
	period. Please
	check your
	systems for
	Reg beginning
	XXXX. I have
	the ticket
	which I can
	photograph
	and send to
	you.

The parking ticket bought has a number

on It-

XXXX.

This should confirm I have paid.

LDast

A bit ambiguous and open to interpretation by a judge that on the balance of probabilities you were the driver. If it had simply been stated that the appeal was as the keeper, there is no opportunity for the operator to then turn around and infer that the keeper must also be the driver.

The burden of proof that the keeper was also the driver is on the operator.

Anyway, there is no admission that the appellant is the driver so work on that basis for now. Up to you if you want to try an IAS appeal. Whether you do or don't, simply ignore any debt collector letters and come back if you successfully appeal through the IAS or if/when you receive an LoC or an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC.

Chickenwings23

LDast said:

A bit ambiguous and open to interpretation by a judge that on the balance of probabilities you were the driver. If it had simply been stated that the appeal was as the keeper, there is no opportunity for the operator to then turn around and infer that the keeper must also be the driver.

Anyway, there is no admission that the appellant is the driver so work on that basis for now. Up to you if you want to try an IAS appeal. Whether you do or don't, simply ignore any debt collector letters and come back if you successfully appeal through the IAS or if/when you receive an LoC or an N1SDT claim form from the CNBC.

Thank you so much. Given the very limited prospects re IAS (I was reading through the newbies thread / FAQs yesterday), I’m not sure it’s worth appealing there.

Will likely wait and see what the PPC chooses to do.

Thanks to everyone for your advice - lessons learned and hopefully this will help someone else in the future.

Chickenwings23

Oh just a thought- I read about the ‘de minimis’ thing on the newbies thread. If I understand correctly, in a case like this, where there is a ticket (which the PPC acknowledges it has found the record on its system) and it’s just a keying issue, the chances of success for me at court would be good?

LDast

Have a read of the new Joint Code of Practice and see what it says about keying errors. However, you maintain that there was no keying "error" but that their machine "spat out a ticket" before the driver had finished keying the VRM.

New Joint Code of Practice Sections 6.3 and F.3(a)