...30 days after alleged parking violation occurred in private car park.
This car park didn’t issue the driver with a windscreen ticket, nor is it pay and diaplay. They have used a warden whom has taken photos of said car and I have recieved the NTK 30 days after.
Am I correct in thinking this should of been with the driver no later than 14 days and in that case I have grounds for dissmissal?
I am also fully aware the notice hasn’t complied with the freedom of information act as it hasn’t issued a length of stay and the postcode for the alleged offence is incorrect.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
** the registered keeper also recieved nothing on the windscreen nor nothing handed to them by said warden.**
Which parking company?
Does the NtK claim keeper liability?
If a PCN wasn’t placed on the car at the time then the NtK has to be delivered within 14 days for keeper liability. Being later doesn’t invalidate it but they can only pursue the driver.
Edit that first post so that the identity of the driver cannot be inferred.`use "the driver....."etc
Dear Sirs,
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 time 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.
I do not expect to hear from you again expect to confrim that no further action will be taken on this matter and my personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc,
Do you also appeal in writing or via email ?
Is either or a better way?
Either way but if by mail then first class and get free certificate of posting from a post office. As long as you can show it's been sent.
But what if they have a legitimate reason to process your personal data? The ICO have played straight bat with the DVLA to date and accept that private parking companies have 'reasonable cause' to pursue. (Even when not complying with PoFA - arguably they still have the right to have the matter decided at court)
Unless you can provide proof it wasn't you driving then they won't stop pursuing you.
(I wish it were as simple as you wish)
Your miusunderstanding of GDPR is a common one but, indeed, flawed. For example, they do not require your consent, at all, to contact you. POFA compliance only afects Keeper liability, it says NOTHING about the validity of hteunderlying alleged ddebt.
Thanks for the replies guys. I have appealed this charge and we will see where it goes from here.
I have told them that no PCN was issued therefore they failed to contact within 14days and said driver will not be named nor assumed.
See where this takes us. Minus the whole gdpr thing.
Just a quick update. I have appealed said charge and contacted many people in regards to this;
The landowners
The site management
Retailers
And local counsellors and MP’s
I have had feedback from a few of the above some of which have agreed in writing the charge counteracts the POFA and should have grounds to appeal and overturn.
I am currently awaiting responses from some of the above and have also been in touch with a person at the car parking company direct to inform them of the breach of the POFA and IPC code of conduct.
Will update as continues.
Mountains and molehills come to mind.
As your research on here will have shown, ECP will reject but provide a POPLA code. A detailed POPLA appeal, including late service as point #1, will see this killed.
Your contact 'with a person at the car parking company direct' may well have been counter productive, particularly if it was by phone and you inadvertently identified the driver.
From here on, rather than go bull at a gate, read other threads, read the advice offered and follow it. There are a lot of experienced people on here who know a lot more about the process than you.
You mention IPC. Which 'Euro'?
There's Euro Car Parks (BPA) and Euro Parking Services (IPC).
Not sure what 'counteract PoFA' means.
Euro Parking Services.
No driver has been identified. Phone call was simply to receive an email address for said person.
Contravene’s the POFA then.
Let’s wait and see the outcome.
Sorry for being picky but you can't 'contravene PoFA'.
They have either met all of the necessary conditions to pursue the keeper or not.
If they didn't then they can only pursue the driver. Or more precisely, the keeper on the basis they were driving.
As IPC member, they won't give up chasing. (With BPA, POPLA will uphold appeals on the basis of lack of keeper liability)
The view will be that if the keeper doesn't name the driver then they were, on the balance of probabilities, driving.
Well I have appealed and am currently waiting a response. Ntk was sent out after 30 days with no NTD being issued.
Therefore Euro has 14 days to deliver NTK which they didn’t, therefore driver will not be named and cannot be assumed.
Also EURO has broken many rules stated in IPC code of conduct.
We will see.
Ok, just to add they are a little litigious - http://www.parkingappeals.info/companydata/Euro_Parking_Services.html
Thanks mate. Yeah :/ we will see where it goes.
So what exactly did you write in your appeal?
OK, it was just that you threatened to add extra. We've seen "additions" to standard text that kill the intended function of the text.
the 14 days you state only apply when we as Operators seek to rely on the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
If we are of that time, we can still pursue our claim under contract, for which the limitations period is 6 years from the date of breach, under the Limitations Act 1980.
We will therefore pursuing our claim under the general principles of the law of contract.
———
You could respond and thank them for confirming that they are not using POFA for keeper liability. Remind them that they can now only hold the driver liable and as yet you have not seen any evidence of the driver. The use of the criminal case of Elliot v Loake to make the assumption that the keeper was the driver is not appl;icable and has been rejected many times by the courts.
Quel surprise...
So simply provide them some evidence that the keeper wasn't driving and they are snookered.
Evidence of being elsewhere - could be a ticket or receipt for example. Tracking on a mobile phone.
Or even a witness statement.
They won't give up easily.
How about a rota proving TRk was in work?
Yes of course.
And thank them very much for confirming they cannot hold you liable as keeper under the POFA 2012.
To pre-empt a crap reply, remind them that CPS v AJH Films Ltd and any similar blathering about the law of agency has no legs (as confirmed to Simon Renshaw Smith, in Excel v Smith on appeal) and so you look forward to them confirming they have now erased your data. They must now consider this a Notice requesting Erasure of your data, as you have established you are not the liable party.
If they do not pass this to their Data Protection Team and confirm the data will be erased now, you will complain to the ICO about a specific breach of the GDPR and data misuse, and will file a counter-claim, should they try a doomed robo-claim in their full knowledge that you have evidenced not being the driver.
Should rota be sent back to Euro as part of appeals process or warning given to Euro that keeper has evidence that wasn’t driver.
I wouldn't withhold any strong evidence. But don't be surprised if they continue to pursue.
I am interested to see what data Euro has about me. Should I subject access request them first before detailing any data to be deleted?
Think I’m going to sar. Would like to see what they have.
Also would of matter if on ntk the name of the site and postcode is actually incorrect.
If htey do not detail the relevant site, of course it matters.
The site name is incorrect if only minor.
But the postcode takes you to one mile away according to google maps.
Both the land management and owners of the land have the correct name and postcode displayed on their websites and this is completely different to that revived on the NTK.
I would rewlly like to see the deeds to the land and the contract that states Euro’s ability and confirmation to operate the.
I am having trouble finding this information?
Anyone have any recommendations?
Wlel land registry will show who owns the land. To get the title you will need to pay them. Form OC2
To see the contract? You iwll have to *ask* Euro or the landowner. They will refuse, but you ask for it in a POPLA appela and if they fail to show it, they lose.
Another spanner in the works is an sar I requested has come back with photos of said vehicle, but again no evidence of the driver.
Enforcer notes no ticket was issued due to not having a printer but dvla notes that info was requested 30 days later.
Is there regulation to say it should of been no later than 14 days if no ticket was issued?
I mean from a data protection and a reasonable cause view point.
Data has been requested from the dvla later than 14 days and therefore it wasn’t requested for the correct purpose.
No, youre barking up the wrong tree. they do not use CONSENT to get your data but reasonable cause. Nothing in reaosnable cause requires 14 days. Stop with this line of thought, it will go nowehere.
Bear in mind POFA has only been in place since 2012, so guess what - before this PPCs could ask for data, and there was no 14 days in ANY legislaiton relevant to them then either.
Win
POPLA win? If so can you send the decision?
No, Euro aren’t popla.
Cancelled direct.
Could you post a redacted copy of their cancellation. I would be interested to see their wording.
However, well done!
Will do once it officially arrives.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)