We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Parallel Parking PCN - no ticket
Options
Comments
-
A Letter Before Claim has come through the door from Gladstones.
The facts didn't change. I have actually found the parking ticket in the meantime which was issued by the parking machine on the given date and time, proving that the parking fee was paid.1 -
Has the receipt got the full VRM on the right?
Anyway send the recommended new LBC response, asking them about VAT on the £60 or £70 fake admin/DRA fee.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The NtK is not PoFA compliant. There is no mention of them relying on PoFA to hold the keeper liable. Even though they've tried to use some PoFA wording in their warning, there is no mention of who the "creditor" is.
As long as the OP has not revealed the identity of the driver, they cannot be pursued as the keeper. If/when a claim comes through, check the PoC very carefully to see if they are pursuing you as the driver or the keeper.1 -
Looks like POFA wording in bold, to me. They don't have to use the word CREDITOR.Huffnagel said:Here you are:
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
According to PoFA 9(2) The notice must -(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—Nowhere on the NtK is there any mention of reliance on Schedule 4 of PoFA, never mind no mention of which paragraph they are relying on. Without informing the keeper that they are relying on PoFA, they cannot have met all the applicable conditions of the Schedule.
Also:
(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(h) identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;
Also, there is no mention anywhere that I can see that mentions who the actual creditor is. They do not state that the creditor does not know the name etc. etc. They state we do not know both the name etc. etc. but we have no idea who the creditor is. Assumption, as we all know, is not enough. Is the creditor the landowner or Parallel Parking Ltd or even the IPC, as their logo is on the NtK?
PoFA 9(2)(h) specifically states that the NtK must identify the creditor and this NtK fails to do that.
2 -
And they have done that.Debszzzz2 said:PoFA 9(2)(h) specifically states that the NtK must identify the creditor and this NtK fails to do that.
The word 'creditor' is a common English language word.
Google what is a creditor.
In this case, Parallel Parking Ltd are claiming to be owed money.
They are therefore a creditor.1 -
I would disagree but, as we all know, it would be a judge who would ultimately decide on whether it is compliant or not. I am still awaiting an opinion on this from an actual district judge and will come back with their thoughts on this.
In the meantime, my understanding of this is that, in the context of legal documents, precision in language is crucial, especially when it comes to statutory requirements like those outlined in PoFA. Whilst I agree that the term "creditor" is commonly understood in English, when it comes to legal documents, and the NtK is one, adherence to the wording and requirements of the law is very important.If PoFA explicitly states that the "creditor" must undertake certain actions, it is generally advisable to ensure that the NtK uses the precise terminology required by the Act. My understanding is that this means explicitly identifying the "creditor" as per the PoFA definition.
Whilst it may seem reasonable to infer that Parallel Parking Ltd is the creditor, assumptions can lead to ambiguity and opens up a potential challenge to enforcement of the NtK being able to hold the keeper liable. Surely, it should be within the creditors remit to align the language of the NtK as closely as possible, if not exactly, with the requirements of PoFA to minimise any legal risks or challenges to its validity, which is what we are aiming to do.
Therefore, if PoFA specifies that the "creditor" must be identified in a certain manner, surely it is incumbent on them to ensure that the NtK adheres to this requirement by explicitly stating the creditor's identity in accordance with the Act. This would help to ensure clarity, compliance, and enforceability of the notice.
1 -
Thanks all. I have to admit, I hardly understand what you're on about, this legal jargon is all alien to me.
I'll take a photo of the Gladstones Solicitors letter but there's no form with it. All they say is that I have to pay the "debt" or register on their website to dispute it.
1 -
Whether or not the word "creditor" is key, do they not have to state that they are claiming under PoFA schedule 4 for that PCN to actually be PoFA compliant ?? ( or should I go and swot again?)The pen is mightier than the sword ..... and I have many pens.0
-
That is another part of my argument that the NtK is not PoFA compliant.Trainerman said:Whether or not the word "creditor" is key, do they not have to state that they are claiming under PoFA schedule 4 for that PCN to actually be PoFA compliant ?? ( or should I go and swot again?)
Whilst these may all be technicalities, they should, in my opinion, add up to non-compliance. There are enough PPCs out there that do strictly adhere to the requirements of PoFA. It's not as though this is something new that they are still trying to adapt to.Debszzzz2 said:Nowhere on the NtK is there any mention of reliance on Schedule 4 of PoFA, never mind no mention of which paragraph they are relying on. Without informing the keeper that they are relying on PoFA, they cannot have met all the applicable conditions of the Schedule.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards