guidance

moneyrats

Coupon-mad said:

no the letter would not be a NTK it would just be a PCN

Exact same thing! You are describing a NTK issued (possibly) under paragraph 8 of POFA but with no windscreen PCN found first.

Any hypothetical photos online of the ghost NTD on the windscreen?

Something I didn't realise until actually reading the POFA, prompted by this poster, is that in this hypothetical situation, the date of the supposed parking offence is over 4 weeks before the issuing of the NTK (or PCN) letter. 

POFA states the company would have to notify the driver within 14 days.

So it sounds like a slam dunk in terms of winning an appeal?

Gr1pr

Its certainly a point worth appealing on, as long as the driver isn't revealed 

Parking companies tend to err on the fact that they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the postal pcn to the keeper , so 7 months in total,  under their KADOE contract  ( nothing to do with POFA or any of the 4 nations   )

POFA compliance allows them to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  subject to a court case outcome,  a hearing in court 

They like to believe that the driver was also the keeper,  which it sometimes is or was

POFA is an extra voluntary tool in their box, should they wish to invoke it by full compliance with pofa,  on relevant land,  many companies still dont bother trying to comply with Pofa  ( its not a mandatory requirement 6th comply,  it's voluntary   )

So appealing based on Pofa2012 does not always resolve a case, bear that in mind 

moneyrats

Gr1pr said:

Its certainly a point worth appealing on, as long as the driver isn't revealed 

Parking companies tend to err on the fact that they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the postal pcn to the keeper , so 7 months in total,  under their KADOE contract  ( nothing to do with POFA or any of the 4 nations   )

POFA compliance allows them to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  subject to a court case outcome,  a hearing in court 

They like to believe that the driver was also the keeper,  which it sometimes is or was

POFA is an extra voluntary tool in their box, should they wish to invoke it by full compliance with pofa,  on relevant land,  many companies still dont bother trying to comply with Pofa  ( its not a mandatory requirement 6th comply,  it's voluntary   )

So appealing based on Pofa2012 does not always resolve a case, bear that in mind 

From what I've read, any appeal started on any grounds would be rejected outright anyway, standard procedure. A keeper in this situation starting an appeal with:

-No windscreen PCN was given at all

-NTK letter issued 33 days after supposed incident (and not received until 40 days after)

-Reason for fine is incorrect anyway and photos in NTK back that up

...would all be expected to be rejected, and then the keeper would have to raise it with IAS? (or IPC?)

moneyrats

Ok the keeper in this hypothetical situation has started the appeal process, upon which has discovered a load more photographs than the ones in the NTK letter, amongst which is a photo of the PCN on the windscreen. 

This means that the person issuing this has taken a photograph of it, and then removed it, because no PCN was on any windscreen when the keeper returned to the car, and so was none the wiser all this time.

How is that possible? And they know no one can prove it wasn't there cos you can't photograph something not being there even if you knew to.

moneyrats

Gr1pr said:

Its certainly a point worth appealing on, as long as the driver isn't revealed 

Parking companies tend to err on the fact that they have 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the postal pcn to the keeper , so 7 months in total,  under their KADOE contract  ( nothing to do with POFA or any of the 4 nations   )

POFA compliance allows them to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper,  subject to a court case outcome,  a hearing in court 

They like to believe that the driver was also the keeper,  which it sometimes is or was

POFA is an extra voluntary tool in their box, should they wish to invoke it by full compliance with pofa,  on relevant land,  many companies still dont bother trying to comply with Pofa  ( its not a mandatory requirement 6th comply,  it's voluntary   )

So appealing based on Pofa2012 does not always resolve a case, bear that in mind 

Question: exactly how does one plead their case in an appeal without revealing the driver? How would the person doing the appeal know the circumstances on the day if they weren't? Or do you just word it so it's all ambiguous....a bit like this forum..

Gr1pr

Ghost ticketing is a well known scam thats been operating in this currently unregulated industry for around 15 years

Regulation by the MHCLG is what is needed,  which should happen eventually,  but it happens because it's an unregulated cowboy industry 

The keeper might not reveal who was actually driving, but could recount on what the driver   ( dont tell em pike  !  ) , or an occupant of the vehicle did or knows

No words like , I ,  ME , MYSELF etc,

The Keeper has received this pcn and is appealing as keeper based on,  blah blah, no keeper liability,  Pofa2012  , liability not transferred from the driver to the keeper 

So using suitable words,  but non specific etc

IPC AOS members have the IAS, BPA AOS members have POPLA,  so depends on the trade body they are affiliated too

Its not a fine,  magistrates issue fines,  private parking companies issue private charges,  like a plumber,  INVOICES !  So not fines.  No legal authority to issue fines , not possible 

moneyrats

Gr1pr said:

Ghost ticketing is a well known scam thats been operating in this currently unregulated industry for around 15 years

Regulation by the MHCLG is what is needed,  which should happen eventually,  but it happens because it's an unregulated cowboy industry 

The keeper might not reveal who was actually driving, but could recount on what the driver   ( dont tell em pike  !  ) , or an occupant of the vehicle did or knows

No words like , I ,  ME , MYSELF etc,

The Keeper has received this pcn and is appealing as keeper based on,  blah blah, no keeper liability,  Pofa2012  , liability not transferred from the driver to the keeper 

So using suitable words,  but non specific etc

IPC AOS members have the IAS, BPA AOS members have POPLA,  so depends on the trade body they are affiliated too

Its not a fine,  magistrates issue fines,  private parking companies issue private charges,  like a plumber,  INVOICES !  So not fines.  No legal authority to issue fines , not possible 

Understood, that's helpful thanks. Yeh I guess I was meaning that recounting the circumstances of the day does not mean you were the driver, but does mean at least that you know the driver if you word it all like that.

Yeh I just read about ghost ticketing, that sounds like exactly what this is. Pretty astonishing, I'm not naive in any way but to actually physically go out of your way to scam sick people in a hospital.....traffic wardens at least square it with their conscience by being technically in the right most of the time...yeh you parked there, yeh you shouldn't have, yes you're upset...now pay the fine. But to actually set a trap to get your company 40 quid more, and that's your job, to just spread more misery to (nearly all old and ill) people who are already in a really crappy place. 

Do they all just sit round the corner laughing maniacally and rubbing their hands together. Just scum

Gr1pr

Now the guidance appears to have got you up to speed,  with knowledge that we have built up since Pofa2012 was enacted,  never mind the clamping stuff before it,  you now seem to have a handle on it 

Hopefully the Private Parking Bill 2019 by Sir Greg Knight ( Now retired   ) will finally come into force with a mandatory CoP overseen by the MHCLG , some 6 or 7 years later,  with the help from coupon mad on the Steering group 

moneyrats

Gr1pr said:

Now the guidance appears to have got you up to speed,  with knowledge that we have built up since Pofa2012 was enacted,  never mind the clamping stuff before it,  you now seem to have a handle on it 

Hopefully the Private Parking Bill 2019 by Sir Greg Knight ( Now retired   ) will finally come into force with a mandatory CoP overseen by the MHCLG , some 6 or 7 years later,  with the help from coupon mad on the Steering group 

Yeh I hadn't realised that there would be more photos online once you start the appeal process. Bit of a time wasting effort as no one's gonna start the appeal without getting all their ducks in a row first. Then you see things like ghost tickets. It's such a stitch up I'm not even sure how anyone could appeal it, you have no defence......yeh I promise it wasn't there honest. 

When the rejection comes through, and given that IAS is apparently just joke nonsense and part of the same scam, what then? Wait for court I guess. Great.

Gr1pr

Not court,  that is the final part of the process,  the game,  like a Penalty shootout, the game must proceed to the end of extra time, otherwise there is no penalty shootout 

Powerless Debt collectors letters follow an unpaid invoice,  see post 4 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements 

Followed by a Letter of Claim giving the recipient 30 days notice,  see post 2 in the newbies sticky thread 

Then it's a possible MCOL court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL 

Then it's defence time, which means studying post 2 yet again,  plus the defence template thread,  because everyone has a defence,  regardless of what they think.  Most cases get discontinued on here, meaning no hearing,  no penalty shootout