UKPC left site ticket wrong reg Options

[youreds91]

OK, driver got a windscreen ticket on a retail park alleging 'driver/keeper left site'
Ticket had the wrong reg on it, 13 instead of 16, so waited to see if a corrected NTK arrived.
NtK duly arrives, issued 32 days after the NtD, with the stock 'this notice supersedes notice xxxxxxxxx.

I have seen many variations on this UKPC tactic, just want to run the appeal wording past the folks on here & hopefully see this off before POPLA.

"I am responding as RK in response to NtK xxxxxxxxxx, I note that this supersedes NtD xxxxxxxxxx.
The original NtD had an incorrect VRN therefore you have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA 2012 schedule 4 in that the windscreen ticket should 'specify the vehicle' to invoke keeper liability.
The NtK xxxxxxxxxx says it supersedes NtD xxxxxxxxxx, this notice is dated 32 days after the alleged incident, therefore it also fails to meet the requirements of PoFA schedule 4 by not being delivered within 14 days of the alleged breach.
As both notices fail on PoFA requirements I am under no obligation to name the driver & will not be doing so, & will not respond to any further communication asking for the drivers details from yourselves or debt collection agencies.
You are required to cancel the charge & remove all personal data from your systems within 7 days."

I could go on with some GDPR stuff & DVLA KADOE failings but just want to see them off.

Some searching indicates a begging letter follows then cancellation.

Does it look ok? Trying to stick to points & not ramble.

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

The NtK xxxxxxxxxx says it supersedes NtD xxxxxxxxxx, this notice is dated 32 days after the alleged incident, therefore it also fails to meet the requirements of PoFA schedule 4 by not being delivered within 14 days of the alleged breach.

Where an NtD is served the NtK must be served between 28 and 56 days, although it's arguable the NtD is defective I wouldn't use this line as it gives them the opportunity to argue that it was in time and not focus on the fact that as it doesn't match the ntD it can never be valid.

As to how an NtK can supersede an NtD, that's beyond me, there is no superseding in the act!

Should be an easy win at POPLA anyway.

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed, theyre just nluffing (bullsh*tting) by using that term, thinking people will be foolled by it

Just state
1) the NtK obviously does not match the NtD and therefore there can be no POFA liability
2) Even if you can persuade POPLA that you are allowed to go behind POFA2012 and issue a NtK independently of a NtD, you fail POFA as without a NtD the notice to keeper MUST arrive within 14 dyas

Cancel the charge now, or have POPLA ell you to do it. As you have manifestly NO chance of winning this at POPLA, any rejection of the appeal without a detailed analysis to fall back on will be viewed as vexatious, and my subsequent apppeal to POPLA will come with a bill for my time at £19 per hour> this is not the offer of a contract, this is warning that your template rejection will not be good enough.

[youreds91]

Was thinking of sending this that was penned by Ostell for someone over on leagle beagles for an identical scenario

I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx

You have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the relevant period of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

In that instance they folded before POPLA. Does this look OK - Ostell?

[nosferatu1001]

Can do, or you can point out the speciifc cocks up and attempts to mislead you, tht youre not faling for.

[youreds91]

It seems they rolled over with barely a whimper, not even had a letter from them yet.

Thanks to Ostell for the concise appeal wording.



This post has been edited by youreds91: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 - 12:07

[The Rookie]

They are meant to respond to the appeal within 35 days and should have acknowledged within 14.

[youreds91]

They are meant to respond to the appeal within 35 days and should have acknowledged within 14.

I did an online appeal & got an auto acknowledgement that mentioned the 35 days. I dare say a letter will arrive soon to confirm.

[The Rookie]

It may be an email (was the acknowledgement email or a letter), and they have a convenient (for the PPC) habit of going to SPAM folders........

[youreds91]

Wait a minute Mr. Postman..

I believe other left site rollovers say 'we believe it was valid but..' probably ones that got the reg correct on the windscreen ticket.