Appeal rejected by LDK (no notice on windshield)

ezio1

Can you check if the complaints email is sufficient? 

I had appealed a Parking Charge and received an official reply from ‘Parking Admin Centre’ on your behalf dated 19th August 2024. Within the contents of the letter, it cited that I had 28 days from the date of the letter if I wish to appeal to POPLA. 

To my dismay, I received a threatogram through the post on 20th August (dated 12th August) from a debt collection agency ZZPS Limited demanding I pay £160.

This is indicative and proof to part of my original appeal of extremely flawed administrative procedures on behalf of LDK and moreover how LDK would allow ZZPS to send a threatogram whilst within the appeals process. 

I will report such acts to the BPA as my case cannot be escalated, nor increased at this stage. In addition, this is a clear breach of the current BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 24.4 which states:   

" 24.4 Once you have become able to use your rights to recover from the keeper under POFA 2012 you must do so in line with the following steps in the Code. These steps are based on industry good practice, not on the law. 

a Notification letter 

• You should send a notification letter to the keeper. This letter should say that the keeper is now liable to pay the charge, and that the keeper should pay the amount due within a set time.

• You must wait until at least 28 days after you sent the Notice to Keeper before sending the notification letter.

• The notification letter does not have to follow a specific format but should confirm that the amount is due and how it should be paid.

 b Final reminder

• If you do not receive a challenge or appeal, and the parking charge is unpaid, you may send a final reminder.

• You must wait until at least 14 days after you sent the notification letter before sending a final reminder.

• You should make it clear in the final reminder how to make the payment and what ”

I expect your prompt response in rectifying this situation (within 3 working days) in light of this clear violation of BPA code of practice and standards.

Regards

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do.  

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that'll do.  

LDK replied 

Thank you for your email complaint .

I have forwarded the contents to ZZPS requesting for an investigation and comments .

Shall be in touch as soon as possible.

Coupon-mad

Chortle. Let's see what ZZPS say then.

Utter chancers.

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

Chortle. Let's see what ZZPS say then.

Utter chancers.

At one point in the past, I would have just paid the £45 and avoid the headache of writing all these complaints, alot of people may even think like that but I realised the importance of doing it. It's not about the £45 or an individual. It's about the principle and dirty tactics that these companies purposefully employ on VULNERABLE people who will pay out of fear.

It is the duty of those that are capable to go after these charlatans so they are forced to close up shop or re-evaluate their dirty tactics, no matter how long it takes. If we pay the £45, it just enables them to continue targeting others. I can imagine the stress and anxiety people get when they receive these things through the post.

My advice is (although I'm in no position to give advice), if you can, fight it if you are able, not for yourself but for everyone else who are victims of these things. 

Coupon-mad

It is the duty of those that are capable to go after these charlatans so they are forced to close up shop or re-evaluate their dirty tactics, no matter how long it takes.

Well said! Us regulars have been on this forum for years (over 15 years in my case) and it doesn't matter how long it takes. We WILL beat the worst PPCs and debt crawler thugs.

Your new found stance is just the same. It is the principle.

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

It is the duty of those that are capable to go after these charlatans so they are forced to close up shop or re-evaluate their dirty tactics, no matter how long it takes.

Well said! Us regulars have been on this forum for years (over 15 years in my case) and it doesn't matter how long it takes. We WILL beat the worst PPCs and debt crawler thugs.

Your new found stance is just the same. It is the principle.

My position and way of thinking is purely born from listening and imitating people like yourself. Touche

ezio1

Hi All, please can you check my POPLA letter below, I believe Monday is my deadline - thank you in advance

Dear POPLA Assessor,

As the registered keeper, I had received a letter dated 4th July 2024 for a contravention that took place on the 25th February 2024 (130 days later). There was no windscreen ticket on the vehicle and the notice to keeper was sent via post.

On a number of occasions, LDK Security Group has acted egregiously, breaching multiple codes of practice including BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 24.4 and POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Paragraph 9 as will be evidenced below.

1.     The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

As no notice was placed on the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention, the requirements of POFA 2012 have not been met. POFA mandates that a Notice to Driver must be issued on the vehicle or handed directly to the driver for the charge to be enforceable against the registered keeper. The failure to issue a Notice to Driver renders the current charge unenforceable under POFA.

POFA 2012 cites 

’’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 applicable section here is (b) as the Parking Charge Notice was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:

“The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”

The Parking Charge Notice sent to me as Registered Keeper via post was issued on 4th July 2024 with the contravention date being 25th February 2024. This is 130 days after the alleged event and is therefore outside the 'relevant period' of 14 days.

Please see the attached file from LDK Security Group with the ‘Contravention date’ of 25th February 2024 and the issue date of 4th July 2024 (Attachment 1)

 

2.     Admission of non-use of POFA 2012 to pursue the charge

On 23rd July 2024, an email response was sent in relation to my appeal from a representative of LDK Security Group that stated ‘Please be advised that our client does not need to reply on POFA 2012 to pursue this charge’ (Attachment 2). If this is in fact the case, on what grounds does LDK Security Group believe they are pursuing this charge? If LDK Security Group are not relying on POFA, are they able to provide evidence that they have identified the driver? As the registered keeper, I cannot be held liable without clear identification of the driver, and any attempt to do so would be legally flawed.

 

3.     Significant delay in issuing a PCN

The excessive delay in issuing a PCN fundamentally undermines the fairness of the process. This delay severely prejudices my ability to recall the specifics of the alleged incident and to mount an adequate defense, constituting a clear violation of procedural fairness.

 

4.     BPA Code of Practice Paragraph 24.4

I had appealed the Parking Charge and received an official reply from ‘Parking Admin Centre’ on behalf of LDK Security Group dated 19th August 2024 (Attachment 3). Within the contents of the letter, it cited that I had 28 days from the date of the letter if I wish to appeal to POPLA. 

To my dismay, I received a threatogram through the post on 20th August (dated 12th August) from a debt collection agency ZZPS Limited demanding I pay £160 (Attachment 4).

Not only is this indicative and proof to the extremely flawed administrative procedures on behalf of LDK Security Group, moreover how LDK would allow ZZPS to send a threatogram whilst within the appeals process. 

BPA Code of Practice cites

" 24.4 Once you have become able to use your rights to recover from the keeper under POFA 2012 you must do so in line with the following steps in the Code. These steps are based on industry good practice, not on the law. 

a. Notification letter 

• You should send a notification letter to the keeper. This letter should say that the keeper is now liable to pay the charge, and that the keeper should pay the amount due within a set time.

• You must wait until at least 28 days after you sent the Notice to Keeper before sending the notification letter.

• The notification letter does not have to follow a specific format but should confirm that the amount is due and how it should be paid. 

 b. Final reminder

• If you do not receive a challenge or appeal, and the parking charge is unpaid, you may send a final reminder.

• You must wait until at least 14 days after you sent the notification letter before sending a final reminder. 

• You should make it clear in the final reminder how to make the payment and what ”

 

5.     Inadequate Signage

According to the BPA Code of Practice, clear and adequate signage is a fundamental requirement. If the signage at the location was unclear, inadequate, or non-compliant with BPA standards at the time of the alleged incident, this would invalidate the PCN. LDK Security Group has not provided irrefutable proof that all signage met the necessary standards on the date in question. In fact, the signage was not clear at all and blended into the background in which it was placed and well above eye level (Attachment 5), almost as if this was purposefully deceptive.

6.     LDK Security Group Complaint acknowledged but not reply given

On 23rd August 2024, LDK Security Group acknowledged my complaint of breach of BPA Code of Practice and had forwarded my complaint to ZZPS requested an investigation and comments (Attachment 6) – I am yet to hear back from ZZPS or LDK Security Group.

Given the above malpractice and clear violations of multiple policies, coupled with the lack of evidence or identification of the driver, I believe that the PCN has been unlawfully issued and continuous malpractice since the issuance of the PCN.

Kind Regards

Coupon-mad

Very good.  You don't really need it but we always add a standard 'no landowner authority' point (see 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread).

Also change this:

(130 days later)

to

(130 days earlier).

ezio1

Coupon-mad said:

Very good.  You don't really need it but we always add a standard 'no landowner authority' point (see 3rd post of the NEWBIES thread).

Also change this:

(130 days later)

to

(130 days earlier).

Done Thank you for your prompt reply