POFA Wording

Car1980

A relative has received an NTK in the post. They were not the driver. The PFA wording looks non-compliant to me. I won't name the PPC in case they fix it in future. Any thoughts?

Protection of Freedoms Act 

You are notified under paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full. As we do not know the driver's name or current postal address, if you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us the name and current postal address of the driver and pass this notice to them. Once this information is received, we will pursue the driver. 

You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued), the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we have the right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you. This Notice is given to·you under paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is subject to our complying with the applicable conditions under Schedule 4 of that Act.
 

Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any parking charge amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone, who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any parking change amount that remains unpaid. Failure to pay the full amount of this notice within 28 days may result in the proceeding of debt recovery action and/or issuing proceedings against you. Additional costs may be incurred. 

Appeal 

You can pay or appeal this charge, you cannot do both. All appeals, complaints and transfer of liability must be put in writing, and must be received within 28 days of the issue date of this notice. This can be submitted online using...

Umkomaas

Where do you think it deficient?

Car1980

It's ok, I've found a post elsewhere that explains everything:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parkmaven-ntk-and-unsuccessful-appeal/

Sod not naming the PPC - it's Parkmaven 

Umkomaas

Car1980 said:

It's ok, I've found a post elsewhere that explains everything:

https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/parkmaven-ntk-and-unsuccessful-appeal/

Sod not naming the PPC - it's Parkmaven 

You can see from reading that thread that you need to be on top of understanding every paragraph and every nuance and be on the very top of your game to argue the pluses and minuses of how individual words are to be interpreted possibly in front of a Judge and a legal representative of a PPC. One untrained layman against two legally qualified individuals. 

There will be much easier options!

Car1980

Yep, 100%. Not to worry, plenty of other things make it unenforceable anyway.

kryten3000

There's no invitation to the keeper as required by Paragraph 9(2)(e).  

Saying the keeper "should tell" them the driver's details isn't correct and POFA is silent on what happens if the named driver denies being the driver, that bit is made up by the PPCs.

Coupon-mad

Just ignore Parkmaven.

Nobody pays private parking charges all the time that this rotten industry persist in ruining people's lives 'extorting' money (DLUHC word) and ducking statutory regulation.