is PCN PoFA compliant?

Gunner835

Is this PCN PoFA compliant or not please? i think it is but want to confirm. Any other comments?Thanks





Thanks

Gr1pr

No idea,  it's over redacted,  no dates,  pofa relies on dates and wording 

Compare it to the examples by coupon mad

Gunner835

everything i've read on here tells me to redact the PCN!!!
What redacted details do you need to confirm please? Thanks

KeithP

Gunner835 said:

What redacted details do you need to confirm please? Thanks

Dates.           

Gunner835

Date of occurrence 5/12/24. Date of issue on 7/12/24

KeithP

...and the date top left of the front page is?

Gr1pr

Clearly it passes on dates

Doesn't seem to specify the time on site or period of parking,  stating the period prior to the incident time  ( but what period   ?  10 minutes,  an hour  ? A year   ?  ) maybe it's hidden by the redactions 

There are POFA warnings on the NTK PCN letter,  so probably compliant there 

The alleged breach is not parked wholly within the bay   ( so nothing to do with the times   )

Gunner835

7/12/24 same as issue date

Gunner835

Thanks Gr1pr, the time is on the PCN but as you say the alleged offence is not a time sensitive one

LDast

It is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). It fails PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). However, POPLA assessors conveniently ignore the subsection (i) part and you would probably have to argue that point as part of an overall defence in court.

Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA states that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must (not "should")include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.

They cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:

• Pay the parking charge, or

• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).

This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict requirements of PoFA.

PoFA compliance requires specific wording to "invite", or a synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.

If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.

The parking company cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore Premier Park and the £170 threatograms that you can see pictures of, in the fourth post of the NEWBIES thread.

No private parking charge should be paid, all the time that the greedy industry continues to swerve proper Government regulation.

End of story, as it stands at the moment.

Their 'bed' remains unmade and they continue to fester in it. When PPC World are finally dragged kicking and screaming out from under their stones, THEN we might eventually be heard to say on this forum that some - lower sum - parking charges should be paid (as we do with some Council PCNs).

Time will tell but that is not yet.