PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UKPC another notice to keeper, 2nd alleged parking event
Intrigued
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:19
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213




Hello everyone


I have received a Notice to Keeper in the Post from UKPC in relation to one of my company vehicles - the vehicle is owned by myself/my company I was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking event.


The Vehicle is registered in my Company Name / my name

The Notice to Keeper is Addressed to 'part/half of my Company Name' followed by my name
at my address and states that the vehicle was not parked within the confines of a bay or space and that the driver was issued with a Parking Charge Notice at the time which has not been paid.


Interestingly they are asking for £60 - 14 day early pay discount of £40 biggrin.gif

It also states that This Parking Charge notice supercedes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which has been reissued

Confused as to how the parking charge number can just change and the original be reissued rolleyes.gif



Do I reply with the Standard Blue Text Appeal again?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,689
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



One case one thread,...?
No possible way to claim the keeper is liable I’d guesss.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:24
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 00:21) *
One case one thread,...?
No possible way to claim the keeper is liable I’d guesss.



Title may be a bit misleading - I already have one alleged parking event with UKPC

This one is an entirely different vehicle
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 11 Oct 2017 - 23:31
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,689
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



So again, does this claim the keeper is liable? Yes or no
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 06:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So what are the timings between the alleged parking event and the arrival (not the date of posting) of the NTK? Was there a ticket on the windscreen?

If there was no windscreen ticket then they have 14 days to deliver it to the keeper. Issuing a second one may make it difficult to meet those 14 days. Perhaps post it up, sutably redacted.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 06:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:04
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213



QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 07:28) *
So what are the timings between the alleged parking event and the arrival (not the date of posting) of the NTK?


38 days for arrival

36 days between alleged parking event and date on NTK


QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 07:28) *
Was there a ticket on the windscreen?


I have asked the driver who has advised that there was a 'Parking Charge Notice' plastic envelope on the winscreen containing a brown envelope and a *Parking Helpline* card (* they think that what it said) no ticket or anything else contained within. Driver assumed it was some sort of practical joke.

Could this explain 'This Parking Charge notice supercedes xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which has been reissued' could the Parking Operative/Parasite have forgotten to put the ticket in the plastic envelope?




QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 07:28) *
If there was no windscreen ticket then they have 14 days to deliver it to the keeper. Issuing a second one may make it difficult to meet those 14 days. Perhaps post it up, sutably redacted.


I will attempt to scan and post

This post has been edited by Intrigued: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:21
Attached File(s)
Attached File  UKPC__reissued.pdf ( 1.57MB ) Number of downloads: 22
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 21:41
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



That is not a POFA compliant NTK. A lot of the required wording is missing and therefore they cannot hold the keeper liable. If the keeper is the company and they try the "Keeper was the driver" trick then they could have problems.

Here's POFA. No windscreen ticket then paragraph 9 applies and 14 day time limit. Windscreen ticket the paragraph 8 and 28 - 56 day limit applies.

Looks like they have really balls it up. I would work on the basis that there was not a windscreen ticket. The NTK looks like one that would be sent for no windscreen ticket as there is no mention of a windscreen ticket.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 17:54
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213




POFA hurt my head - just finished day 19 without a day off ohmy.gif

Should I reply to the NTK?

If so
What would be the best response?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Fri, 13 Oct 2017 - 19:15
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,803
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



I think the clue is in the *Parking Helpline* being in the ticket folder, this was not a NTD but some advertsing alledgedly which the DVLA have fallen for. So you can simply go back to them saying that the NTK was delivered after the required 14 days ref POFA 2012, so there is no keeper liability, the keeper has passed on the form to the driver as requested. The keepers will expect no further communication as there is no liability.

Short and simple. Keep any debt collection letters but do not respond, come back if you get an LBA or court papers but as they do not attempt to invoke POFA 2012 in their NTK they know already they can do nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 22:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213




Is the below Suitable as a response?


I can confirm that I am the keeper of the above vehicle ,and cannot be held liable for the transgressions of the driver as the Notice To Keeper was delivered after the required 14 days ref POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability, the keeper has passed on the form to the driver as requested. The keeper will expect no further communication as there is no liability.



Love and Kisses

Intrigued
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 14:16
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,689
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Alleged transgressions

As they have no liability. I require you to cease processing my data within 21 days to prevent further unwarranted distress and harassment. As data controller according to the dvla KADOE contract, you are required to respond.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 14:26
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As this appears to be against a company I don't think the DPA applies.

I've not quite got my head round the OP's statement about the ID of the registered keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 21:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 15:26) *
As this appears to be against a company I don't think the DPA applies.

I've not quite got my head round the OP's statement about the ID of the registered keeper.





The Registered Keeper of the Vehicle is my company/myself.

E.G: If my company was called Intrigued Building Services

The registered Keeper would be : Intrigued Building Services Mr Intrigued,


The Notice to Keeper is addressed to: D Building Service, Mr Intrigued
(they have completely missed off the 1st part of my company name - bar 1 letter)


Would it be fair to assume that the NTK is therefore incorrectly addressed?
Have I as registered keeper received a vaild NTK?
Or Should I just stick with the NTK being delivered after the required 14 days?



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 15:16) *
Alleged transgressions

As they have no liability. I require you to cease processing my data within 21 days to prevent further unwarranted distress and harassment. As data controller according to the dvla KADOE contract, you are required to respond.


wink.gif Thank you


I can confirm that I am the keeper of the above vehicle ,and cannot be held liable for the Alleged transgressions of the driver as the Notice To Keeper was delivered after the required 14 days ref POFA 2012, therefore there is no keeper liability, the keeper has passed on the form to the driver as requested.
As there is no liability. I require you to cease processing my data within 21 days to prevent further unwarranted distress and harassment. As data controller according to the DVLA KADOE contract, you are required to respond.


Much Love

Intrigued
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 21:15
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Little better understanding. How does this compare with the V5?

Go with the 14 day defence, the name could be considered close enough.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 21:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 22:15) *
Little better understanding. How does this compare with the V5?


V5 shows Intrigued Building Services
Mr Intrigued



QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 22:15) *
Go with the 14 day defence, the name could be considered close enough.



Will Do


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 17 Oct 2017 - 21:34
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,209
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



OK so it is a company registration. Just saves arguments when they claim that it is reasonable to assume the keeper was driving.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Intrigued
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 23:26
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 28 May 2017
Member No.: 92,213





Took them 36 days to respond and cancel the parking charge biggrin.gif


Thanks for all the advice wink.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 27 Nov 2017 - 23:26
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,541
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Yay, nice one, thanks for confirming!
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: Friday, 22nd June 2018 - 01:34
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.