Is this letter to keeper POFA/Code of Practice compliant?

surreyman_2

A PPC has sent me, as registered keeper, a letter (incidentally, it is headed "Parking Charge to Keeper", which appears to be an inadvertent slip that reveals the PPC's real intention).

I attach a photo of the main body of this letter.

The letter relates to an alleged breach of contract regarding the use of a drop-off zone in an airport and mentions this in the text of the letter. However it never states specifically that the drop-off zone is relevant land. This is despite POFA's requirement that the purported relevant land be specified as such in the letter/notice/invoice/whatever to keeper.

This leads me to wonder whether the wording of this document is compliant with the requirements of POFA and/or the Code of Practice for PPCs. I'd be very grateful for any comments from all you seasoned forumites.

By the way, this query is not about whether airports can be classed as relevant land. That's a different matter, which I'll pursue separately.

Coupon-mad

No that's non-POFA because it looks like it's about Gatwick Airport drop off zone?

If it is about an Airport just use the 100% winning words in the Airport Drop off Group Thread...search and ye shall find. No link given!

The keeper can't lose.

Gr1pr

It can never comply with Pofa2012,  as stated in your previous thread,  because Pofa2012 does not apply at airports,  it's that simple,  so doesn't matter what any pcn says, Pofa2012 cannot apply on non relevant land,  including Ports,  Railway land and Airports

There are NO Pofa2012 warnings on it , because they are not using Pofa2012 and cannot use Pofa2012 , so they haven't done 

Pofa2012 is about relevant land,  so the 2 go together,  but doesn't apply to airport land,  including dropoff zones

The answer is,  it cannot be compliant , so it isnt, you can apply that fact to any pcn issued on non relevant land, even if its a forest like Epping Forest or TfL or Yorkshire Water or the Olympic Park swimming pool

surreyman_2

Many thanks to both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.
I’ve taken on board your very helpful comments, as well as the successful appeals that have been shared on the Airport Drop off Group Thread.
I’ve also re-read this NTK very carefully to see exactly what it says and what it does not say. My appeal will be limited to a straightforward reply to what the NTK actually says and your valuable input  has been an enormous help in drafting this. I won’t go into any more details at this stage because the PPCs almost certainly read this forum, but I will let you know how this company responds.

Umkomaas

surreyman_2 said:

Many thanks to both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.
I’ve taken on board your very helpful comments, as well as the successful appeals that have been shared on the Airport Drop off Group Thread.
I’ve also re-read this NTK very carefully to see exactly what it says and what it does not say. My appeal will be limited to a straightforward reply to what the NTK actually says and your valuable input  has been an enormous help in drafting this. I won’t go into any more details at this stage because the PPCs almost certainly read this forum, but I will let you know how this company responds.

Overdone assumption. These parking charges are issued on an industrial scale. Today alone there have been 40,000 motorists trapped by the skimdustry, yesterday the same, tomorrow will be the same too.  14.5 million this year. Next to no prospect of any PPC identifying anyone by wading through the 100 or so threads being dealt with here every day .... and trying to put 2 and 2 together.  They can't be assed, there's plenty of money rolling in without any unnecessary effort. 

ChirpyChicken

surreyman_2 said:

Many thanks to both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.
I’ve taken on board your very helpful comments, as well as the successful appeals that have been shared on the Airport Drop off Group Thread.
I’ve also re-read this NTK very carefully to see exactly what it says and what it does not say. My appeal will be limited to a straightforward reply to what the NTK actually says and your valuable input  has been an enormous help in drafting this. I won’t go into any more details at this stage because the PPCs almost certainly read this forum, but I will let you know how this company responds.

As previously mentioned over thinking this.
Just use the template appeal nothing else is needed 
We know the company will cancel if appealed correctly and no they wont care

surreyman_2

Umkomaas said:

surreyman_2 said:

Many thanks to both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.
I’ve taken on board your very helpful comments, as well as the successful appeals that have been shared on the Airport Drop off Group Thread.
I’ve also re-read this NTK very carefully to see exactly what it says and what it does not say. My appeal will be limited to a straightforward reply to what the NTK actually says and your valuable input  has been an enormous help in drafting this. I won’t go into any more details at this stage because the PPCs almost certainly read this forum, but I will let you know how this company responds.

Overdone assumption. These parking charges are issued on an industrial scale. Today alone there have been 40,000 motorists trapped by the skimdustry, yesterday the same, tomorrow will be the same too.  14.5 million this year. Next to no prospect of any PPC identifying anyone by wading through the 100 or so threads being dealt with here every day .... and trying to put 2 and 2 together.  They can't be assed, there's plenty of money rolling in without any unnecessary effort. 

Umkomaas said:

surreyman_2 said:

Many thanks to both @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad.
I’ve taken on board your very helpful comments, as well as the successful appeals that have been shared on the Airport Drop off Group Thread.
I’ve also re-read this NTK very carefully to see exactly what it says and what it does not say. My appeal will be limited to a straightforward reply to what the NTK actually says and your valuable input  has been an enormous help in drafting this. I won’t go into any more details at this stage because the PPCs almost certainly read this forum, but I will let you know how this company responds.

Overdone assumption. These parking charges are issued on an industrial scale. Today alone there have been 40,000 motorists trapped by the skimdustry, yesterday the same, tomorrow will be the same too.  14.5 million this year. Next to no prospect of any PPC identifying anyone by wading through the 100 or so threads being dealt with here every day .... and trying to put 2 and 2 together.  They can't be assed, there's plenty of money rolling in without any unnecessary effort. 

Fair point. I’ve basically said there’s no keeper liability. I’ve also given them some rope with which they can hang themselves, if they choose not to cancel but to escalate it to a level where they will have to present their counter-argument.

Le_Kirk

Just be careful not to inadvertently out yourself as driver; that's why the standard blue text appeal is there and written to protect the driver. 

surreyman_2

UPDATE: Success! Many thanks to everyone for their helpful responses to my earlier posts.
Here’s the appeal I sent the PPC:
“Your invoice (Parking Charge to Keeper number [REDACTED]) is addressed to me and is in respect of an alleged breach of terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle with registration number [REDACTED], of which I am the registered keeper.
The aforementioned invoice states that you consider the driver of the said vehicle to be liable for a parking charge of £100. At the same time, this invoice invites me (the registered keeper) either to pay the sum demanded, or to provide you with the details of the driver of the said vehicle at the time stated in your invoice and to pass this charge on to the said driver.
You do not specify in your invoice any legislation that obliges the registered keeper to carry out any of your requests.
Consequently, as the registered keeper, I consider myself not to be involved in this matter and I decline all the requests that you have made in the said invoice.
In view of this, I request and require you: to cancel the aforementioned invoice; to delete my personal data from your records; to cease communicating with me about this matter.”
Their reply, which I received today, is in the attached photo.

Coupon-mad

Yay! Well done. Easy when you know how!

Kaizen2024

It’s beyond me why these airport operators don’t use CCTV to help identify the driver / confirm the Keeper was the driver, maybe it will come.