PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Notice to Keeper (from Premier Parking Solutions), Car was with the dealer at the time
jojo01
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Member No.: 68,313



Just after a bit of advice please.

My mum received a Notice to Keeper yesterday for a parking charge relating to a car she owned in May (no longer the owner).

As the time of the alleged parking offence, the car was in the care of the dealer/garage (and had been in their care for the previous 10 days).

As it was at the dealer, we have no idea who the driver was at the time (it got the ticket 0.3 of a mile away from the dealer by a pub!) and the form asks for the driver's name and address. Should we put the driver as our contact at the garage (a lowly sales exec) or the general manager?

Incidentally, the alleged offence occurred on 13th May and the notice to keeper was posted on 13th June so I assume they've missed the boat anyway?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 18)
Advertisement
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,318
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Dear Sir

Ref ****

I refer to this parking notice

I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date that you mention
Neither was I its keeper

Notwithstanding the above comment, you failed to serve a valid Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act

The matter is therefore closed

Yours Faithfully

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jojo01
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:59
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Member No.: 68,313



Thanks Redivi.

I just want the matter shot of and no comeback from PPS (as it's involving my 84 year old mother who's ill) so want the dealer to deal with any comeback. On their form, can I just put driver name unknown and the dealer's address and add your suggested cover letter on the front?

ETA: Just reading that the notice to keeper should be received between 28-56 days from the date of the alleged offence (in which case the letter is compliant). No idea whether a ticket was issued at the time or not. Happy to post a redacted copy of the letter if that would be helpful.

This post has been edited by jojo01: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:31
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 381
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212



Is there a change of keeper involved here? Car was 'in the care of the garage' so was it transferred/sold/part-ex to them in May? If so, was DVLA notified and when?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jojo01
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:46
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Member No.: 68,313



It was sold back to them but on 4th June. It had been with the garage to sort some things out which were never completed, so it was sold back to them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,865
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



It could be argued the Garage was the keeper while they had the car. Would the Garage take responsibility ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:36
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,426
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I think a letter to them that the garage was the keeper, as suggested in post #2, but without the mention of POFA. If you don't intend to have any dealings with the gargae again then tell them the name of the garage. Do you have invoices etc from the garage that cover this period.

Did the notice to keeper mention that a notice had been issued previously? If it does not then add in the POFA but
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:46
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,318
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



That's the view I'm taking and it's a good idea to name the dealer as the keeper

It's the argument that the DVLA used to justify changing registrations to Midway Car Parks when they fancied cars that they'd towed

If the pub is a short distance from the dealership, it's likely that the driver is a regular customer and in a position to get it cancelled

Is the dealership part of a chain because a firm message to its Head Office might produce results if PPS continues to pester

There's a gap in POFA
The PPC can't recover payment from the keeper if the car is stolen but, unlike council tickets, there's no such exemption if it was used without the owner's consent
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,426
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



But I think the POFA statement that the keeper is assumed to be the registered keeper unless it can be shown otherwise. In 2 (1), the definitions.

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;


Would be sufficient.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:53
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,712
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:00) *
But I think the POFA statement that the keeper is assumed to be the registered keeper unless it can be shown otherwise. In 2 (1), the definitions.

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;


Would be sufficient.

Sufficient for what? To prevail in court? I sure hope so. To get a rapacious PPC to see sense and voluntarily cancel the charge? Highly unlikely...

I think the OP will just have to assume that the PPC will continue its usual harassing tactics until such time as it decides to throw in the towel (which could be later, rather than sooner, depending on the PPC).

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 06:11
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,830
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Sufficient to name the garage as the keeper I would suggest?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 22:18
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,712
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 07:11) *
Sufficient to name the garage as the keeper I would suggest?

Yes, and?

Why would a PPC stop harassing a known person with a known address merely because that person had fingered "the garage"? The PCN still needs paying... dry.gif

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 05:08
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,426
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Because the only person that can be held liable is the keeper at the time.

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 07:30
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



Premier Park do harass the RK and don't give up easily. I would be very firm with them that the garage was both keeper and driver at the time. Make it absolutely clear that they are wasting their time chasing you and that you will not be paying them anything!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 09:02
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,830
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



PP do use court, and stating early on they weren't the keeper and who was seems entirely the actions of a reasonable person. the OP wasn't responsible for the ticket so why should he have to put up with the hassle?

Unless the garage deny being the keeper there would be a clear DPA issue with them continuing to chase someone who had provided the details of the person they should be chasing.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 09:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,712
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 06:08) *
Because the only person that can be held liable is the keeper at the time.

“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper;

Yes, we know all that. But is still means that the RK will need to prove the contrary, most likely in court. As the burden of proof in such case would shift onto the RK, merely alleging that the garage was the keeper won't make this PPC go away. (Unless, of course, the garage steps up and pays the charge, which, of course, they should, but...)

Which also means that, unless the OP fancies suing the PPC on his/her own initiative re the DPA breach, the harassment will likely continue until such time as the PPC decides to give up or chance court. If it were so easy to shut down the magic PPC money tree, everyone would be doing it. By all means, notify PP that the RK was not the keeper and garage was--this is essential in any case--and make certain proof of such notification is retained in case it is needed in court. I just don't think that will stop the PPC from shaking the tree.

Perhaps PP will prove me wrong, and show that it has some intelligence and decency by cancelling the PCN or letting the OP know that it will be pursuing the garage instead?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Macapaca
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 11:22
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,458



I can confirm from first hand experience that PP has absolutely no decency or intelligence and will certainly try to harass the RK if the garage don't wish to pay. It is up to the OP to provide whatever evidence is available to PP to try to convince them that it would be futile to continue to pursue the RK and show no hint of weakness. PPC's like PP prey on the weak. Once the OP has named the keeper and driver then any obligations they might have had as RK are removed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 12:15
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,318
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I'm not clear from this thread whether the OP is dealing with Premier Park or Premier Parking Solutions
IIRC they're closely connected

When I was at Parkex last year, I passed stands for Mil Collections, DRP, DCBL and ZZPS - even stopping at a couple

The only stand that gave me such creeps that I walked quickly past on the other side of the aisle was Premier Park

The first court case I was involved with was a Premier Park double-dip :

The severely disabled defendant, the registered keeper, needed constant care and there was no possibility that the car would be present for that time
The car never stopped in the area managed by Premier - the entrance served a second car park where it dropped off and collected a passenger

The first hearing, that was attended by the defendant, required an adjournment
After seeing the defendant's disability, Premier still continued the case
The judge made the decision that the defendant did not have to attend the second hearing and afterward complimented her on the quality of her evidence pack
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jojo01
post Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:41
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 27 Jan 2014
Member No.: 68,313



Sorry for the delay getting back to you all on this, mum ended up back in hospital so we've been busy with that. Thanks for all your advice though, it's massively appreciated.

The dealer agreed to take care of everything so we've handed it over to them and let PPS have their details so fingers crossed that's the end of it. On the offchance it isn't though, I'll be back!

Thanks again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Monday, 16th July 2018 - 12:26
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.