PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Keeper Liability conditions not met. Am I bombproof?
Rifty
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



I am now at Debt Collector stage in my correspondence with the parking company, expecting a Gladstone letter in a couple of weeks.

I originally received a Notice to Keeper dated 4th January on 8th January for a parking event alleged on 21st December.

I wrote back telling them that their Notice to Keeper was defective due to being out of time, and they had no claim on me as Registered Keeper and suggested that they took the matter up with the driver, whomever that might have been.

By my calculation, the 14 day clock starts at 00:01 on 22 December. The notice issued on 4th Jan 2018 is deemed delivered on 2nd working day following the notice being sent. Assuming they sent it on the 4th (couldn't have been earlier) then it is deemed delivered on 8th January (6th and 7th was a weekend).

14 days from 00:01 22nd December expires at 23.59 on 4th January.

I calculate that the Notice to Keeper is out of time, and therefore keeper liability does not apply. I wrote them explaining that but they have ignored everything I have written. I assume they didn't even bother reading it.

However, if I get an LBA, can I proceed with confidence that they cannot possibly win due to a defective Notice to Keeper? There were a lot of bank holidays during that 14 days, but as far as I can read in the legislation, the 14 day deadline is purely elapsed time, and the only reference to working days is contained in the assumed delivery time between the posting and receipt.

Am I correct that the Notice to Keeper is defective?

[ There was no Notice to Driver apparently - or else they breached the rules by going for a DVLC keeper request before 28 days ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Macapaca
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 17:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 647
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



If you receive debt collector letters then just file and ignore!

They may well just ignore the 14 days trip wire in the hope that ypu will cave in and pay up. You could try to write to them again and loint out that you are not liable and to inform them that any debt collector letters will be ignored as they have zero authority.

In the meantime I suggest that you work on your case just in case they press on to threaten legal proceedings. Is your only defence the 14 day rule?

You might also consider going on the front foot and call their bluff by asking them for a formal LBA but if you do then list all the information and documents that they will need to supply. They probably won't respond because it takes time and money. It is to your advantage if they dont respond because you can then demonstrate that you have tried to resolve the matter and they have not responded.

This post has been edited by Macapaca: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 18:44
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



Did the PCN mention PoFA on it and any keeper liability?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 20:45
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



Which parking company? Important information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 23:55
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



QUOTE (Dave65 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:44) *
Did the PCN mention PoFA on it and any keeper liability?


There was no PCN on the car, apparently. Just their Notice to Keeper in the Post.

They did claim in a follow up letter that their Notice was valid because it had been "given to be delivered" within 14 days. It was a misquote of the PoFA.

It is UK Car Park Management Ltd.

I still don't know the alleged location as they have just given a single word name - Centro, no street, postcode or even a County!

The photos are either underexposed or printed too dark, so the location and photos of the signs are illegible, and the car registration is not visible in their photos, although the make and model and colour appears to be correct.

Do I need other grounds than a defective Notice to Keeper? If the conditions for Keeper liability are not met, I assumed any action must fail, and I could have it struck out on those grounds alone.


QUOTE (Dave65 @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 19:44) *
Did the PCN mention PoFA on it and any keeper liability?


There was no PCN on the car, apparently. Just their Notice to Keeper in the Post.

They did claim in a follow up letter that their Notice was valid because it had been "given to be delivered" within 14 days. It was a misquote of the PoFA.

It is UK Car Park Management Ltd.

I still don't know the alleged location as they have just given a single word name - Centro, no street, postcode or even a County!

The photos are either underexposed or printed too dark, so the location and photos of the signs are illegible, and the car registration is not visible in their photos, although the make and model and colour appears to be correct.

Do I need other grounds than a defective Notice to Keeper? If the conditions for Keeper liability are not met, I assumed any action must fail, and I could have it struck out on those grounds alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:13
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Rifty @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 00:55) *
Do I need other grounds than a defective Notice to Keeper? If the conditions for Keeper liability are not met, I assumed any action must fail, and I could have it struck out on those grounds alone.

Unfortunately not that simple. They can pursue the keeper on the basis they were driving.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:20
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You don't need other grounds, though if you can list all the other failings then it will show just how bad they are.

Yes, they have to specify the relevant land 9 (2) (a)

PCN/NTK can be the same. Did the letter you had state POFA liability?

Probably better to post up the NTK, suutably redacted, for others to look at it and help. Leave the dates.

Just sit back and see what happens or go on the atack and tell them that as they no that there is no liability any further communication demanding money will be regarded as harassment and action will be taken if it continues. Reference the British Gas case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:55
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Of course, what would be ideal (if they have failed with keeper liability) is to tell them, or even better provide 'proof', that the keeper was not driving...

There's a train of thought that if the keeper did not name the driver then they were likely to be (on the balance of probabilities) the driver. Of course, for court the claimant would need to present something that tips the balance - there's no presumed keeper liability, regardless of how many spurious cases they trot out, e.g. Eliott v Loake.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 18 May 2018 - 06:56


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 15:07
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 07:13) *
QUOTE (Rifty @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 00:55) *
Do I need other grounds than a defective Notice to Keeper? If the conditions for Keeper liability are not met, I assumed any action must fail, and I could have it struck out on those grounds alone.

Unfortunately not that simple. They can pursue the keeper on the basis they were driving.


They have no evidence of that - the keeper was not, in fact, the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 15:38
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 18 May 2018 - 07:20) *
You don't need other grounds, though if you can list all the other failings then it will show just how bad they are.

Yes, they have to specify the relevant land 9 (2) (a)

PCN/NTK can be the same. Did the letter you had state POFA liability?

Probably better to post up the NTK, suutably redacted, for others to look at it and help. Leave the dates.

Just sit back and see what happens or go on the atack and tell them that as they no that there is no liability any further communication demanding money will be regarded as harassment and action will be taken if it continues. Reference the British Gas case.


I have attached 2 letters to me and my initial response
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 16:40
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



What a load of wallies !!! That first letter, besides being out of time, is missing many of the items that must be there under POFA 9 (2). Check it out. The second letter, probably inspired by your response, is better but it is still missing the "must be there" sections of 9 (2) and even more out of date.

I think ignore for now and come back if they try again.

The harassment case was Ferguson v British Gas



This post has been edited by ostell: Fri, 18 May 2018 - 16:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:10
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010




Today a second letter arrives from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, headed "Notice of Intended Court Action".

Basically saying "If you don't pay by 12th June we'll pass your file back to the client with a recommendation that they take further action"

I am assuming as they are not the creditor, that this is just another flavour of hopeful threat, and does not actually constitute a "Letter Before Action"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:46
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Your next letter will be from Zenith, the next desk in the DRP office. They are just debt collectors with no interest in the debt.

Looking back on your dates (I missed it at first) they issued the NTK on day 14 but it is the date that it is delivered to you that is the relevant period. Issuing on the 14 th day is insufficient. The 4th of Jan was a Thursday so delivery is assumed to be 2 working days after issue so that takes it, as you said, to Monday 8th, well past the 14 days.

They have no chance of succeeding in court, they are just pushing their luck. If it did get to court then DRP will get nothing, not a good business model.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 647
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Just another debt collector's letter with zero authority to do anything! They can't issue court proceedings anyway so it is just an idle threat hoping that you will be dumb enough to pay. Sit tight in case UK CPM Ltd issue a LBA.

Once you realise how useless these companies are it is actually quite entertaining watching their pathetic behaviour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:43
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



QUOTE (Macapaca @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:02) *
Just another debt collector's letter with zero authority to do anything! They can't issue court proceedings anyway so it is just an idle threat hoping that you will be dumb enough to pay. Sit tight in case UK CPM Ltd issue a LBA.

Once you realise how useless these companies are it is actually quite entertaining watching their pathetic behaviour.


I was actually quite surprised. Considering their whole business model depends on their understanding of these rules, it is staggering that they persist. I suspect it is because no humans actually go anywhere near the process until they actually issue proceedings. So automated printed letters and discounted bulk mail costs are not a massive overhead. It only takes one person to pay out of fear to cover 250 speculative threatening letters.

It is just like the TV Licence. The process is dependent on creating an unreasonable fear in people who are not sure of the rules. Hence mimicking local authority PCN's, red top letters, threats of "Supreme Court" , legal gobbledegook etc.

The internet will eventually kill them off. A 5 minute trawl gives anyone the confidence to tell them to get stuffed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 16:29
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



If this eventually proceeds to a hearing, and I, as registered keeper cannot attend, can another lay person, i.e. a friend or relative attend and argue in my stead?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 16:59
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 647
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



You would need to attend or risk a default win against you. You can take a Lay Representative (who can speak on your behalf) or a McKensie Friend (who cannot speak but you can consult with). Why are you asking the question?

Note the UK PCM have increased the number of court hearings in 2018 but it is still a small % of all their cases at just over 2%. The 2% they choose will be ones they think they might win. On the basis of what you have told us on this forum I cannot see your case being in the 2%. They lose money by going to court even if they win! So why take a case that will probably lose?

These companies only do court occasionally to make it look like the tiger has a tooth.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:48
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You must attend. As you will know from reading around part of the procedure x the DQ - is to say what dates you cannot attend
You can only be represented in your absence by someone suitably qualified to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rifty
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 09:07
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,010



QUOTE (Macapaca @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:59) *
You would need to attend or risk a default win against you. You can take a Lay Representative (who can speak on your behalf) or a McKensie Friend (who cannot speak but you can consult with). Why are you asking the question?

Note the UK PCM have increased the number of court hearings in 2018 but it is still a small % of all their cases at just over 2%. The 2% they choose will be ones they think they might win. On the basis of what you have told us on this forum I cannot see your case being in the 2%. They lose money by going to court even if they win! So why take a case that will probably lose?

These companies only do court occasionally to make it look like the tiger has a tooth.


I ask the question as looking at the usual timescales, I have two long overseas contracts between November and July next year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 09:18
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So you tyell the court when you will not be available and the case should not be scheduled for those dates. Could be an interesting claim for travel if it's not !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:33
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here