PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Bristol Airport
white_ford_taxi
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 16:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



Good afternoon everyone,

I operate a taxi service in Devon and am in the process of appealing a PCN on behalf of a driver, that was issued 02/01/2020 (Happy New Year!)
I appealed as they had the wrong time (09:02) on the ticket and our vehicle was nowhere near the airport at that time.
I then received a letter via e-mail from them (VCS) dated 27/01/2020 saying "Please be advised that the original Charge Notice issued to you contained an administrative error and a corrected Charge Notice has been re-issued"
So, next to arrive (Via post) was a PCN/HN issued 27/01/2020 stating the time as 19:02.
I appealed again, as they would not have been aware of their "administrative error" had I not told them our car was not there at the original time of Contravention.
This second appeal has come back as unsuccessful, next step is to appeal to the IAS or pay £60 by 03/03 or £100 by 17/03.

Could someone please tell me if It's worth me carrying on with this battle or do I pay the £60 by the 3rd March to make it all go away.

Many thanks in advance,
white_ford_taxi
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 32)
Advertisement
post Fri, 21 Feb 2020 - 16:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 09:54
Post #21


Member


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



Was the Notice to hirer addresses to an individual or a comply?

It is not up to you to prove you were not the driver, it is up to them to show that you are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 10:26
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



The Notice to Hirer was addressed to Me at LTD Company name and address.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 5 Mar 2020 - 15:38
Post #23


Member


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



So the hire contract is with the limited company and you are merely the contact name and not the driver.

So a response back to them pointing out that you had not mentioned the delay of the letter arriving rather the failure of them complying with the requirements of POFA and so being unable to hold the hirer liable. The hirer was a limited company and hence could not have been driving and you are a mere officer of the company responding to the paperwork and not the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Sun, 26 Apr 2020 - 20:05
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



Good evening,

Latest update is, I received the attached "FINAL DEMAND" by post on 24/04/2020. It states that it was posted 17/04/2020 and the "DEADLINE FOR ACTION" is 24/04/2020 so that deadline has been missed already.

Best course of action is a letter saying:
There's no keeper liability as failure to comply with POFA 2012 (13) (2).
Land at Bristol Airport is subject to Bylaws and therefore not "relevant land".
The hirer of said vehicle was a corporate body, and therefore could not have been the driver anyway.
You mention in your last letter there are signs stating "no stopping". These signs are not offering any sort of contract and without a contract there cannot be ant breach of a non existent contract.
Please could you identify the driver.

Am I doing this right?

Many thanks,
W_F_T
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 28 Apr 2020 - 07:36
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Pretty much, yes. Or don't bother at all.

Don't worry there will be a 'final final demand' and a 'final, this time we really mean it, demand' at least!


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 7 May 2020 - 09:04
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



Update:
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM received yesterday (dated 01/05/2020).
It's exactly the same as the other received in this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...Bristol+Airport although different dates/ref etc.
I have sent a SAR for the previous case, is it worth me doing the same for this one, as in theory it's still me they're addressing it to and is the same vehicle concerned.
Same with the letter denying the debt, should I do the same letter (slightly tweaked) stating the reasons and that I am seeking debt advise?
Many thanks,
W_F_T
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 May 2020 - 15:42
Post #27


Member


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



Yes, and state they must cease processing for a min of 30 days while you seek such advice

Simple bullet summary of how they havent got a hope. THat even if they claim the land is relevant land, they havent complied because....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 07:54
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



Okay, I sent a SAR and sent a reply to the Letter Before Claim (dated 01/05/2020) raising the point about failure to comply etc.
I have now received ANOTHER Letter Before Claim from them dated 15/05/2020.
The only difference, apart from the date of letter, is the first one was addressed to me:
My Name
Company Address

The second letter is addressed to:
My Ltd Company Name
Company Address

Could this be because they did not get the response they were hoping for from me so sent the same letter to Ltd Company in the hope the company will pay the charge?
Shall I respond back with the same SAR and response as before?

Many thanks for any help.

W_F_T
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 09:29
Post #29


Member


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



Yes raise a SAR, make them work.

Good that they are claiming from the company. A company, a body corporate, cannot be a driver so there usual particulars of claim naming keeper and/or driver could be interesting. So the defendant can only be the company and they have failed to comply with POFA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 09:56
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I will send them another SAR from the Ltd company.

I have read that, as a business any hearing will be at the claimants home court, where as if it was to an individual, then any proceedings will be transferred to my local court. Putting me at a disadvantage if I have to travel to defend the claim in Sheffield. Do you think this could also be a reason behind it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 May 2020 - 10:05
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (white_ford_taxi @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 10:56) *
I will send them another SAR from the Ltd company.

Subject Access Requests (under the Data Protection Act) only relate to personal information about individuals. A request about a 'company' will be politely declined.

QUOTE (white_ford_taxi @ Thu, 21 May 2020 - 10:56) *
I have read that, as a business any hearing will be at the claimants home court, where as if it was to an individual, then any proceedings will be transferred to my local court. Putting me at a disadvantage if I have to travel to defend the claim in Sheffield. Do you think this could also be a reason behind it?

Yes, in pursuing a company to court they get to choose the court and they will argue that the driver identity is irrelevant as they were working as an agent of the company. (Or vicarious liability)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 21 May 2020 - 10:06


--------------------
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
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 28 May 2020 - 09:33
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I have received a response to the SAR from the other alleged breach I am fighting against VCS and enclosed within it were all documents and their timeline of events for this case as well.
It doesn't really tell me anything I don't know as I have kept all the paperwork they have sent me.
However it does state "Footage shows vehicle stationed for 20's". Can I use this as another point in my defence, that being stationary for 20 seconds is not enough time to get a ticket?

Also, in relation to them sending two different LBC first addressed to me then to Ltd Company, their notes from the SAR file the other case say on 14/05/2020 at 15:20:08 "Updated as is a limited company, name is just a representative of said company". There is a note from the SAR on this case that says on 14/05/2020 at 15:20:20 (ie 12 seconds after the other note) "Resend LBA in company name".
Can they use information gained from another case in this one?

Many thanks all for your help.

This post has been edited by white_ford_taxi: Thu, 28 May 2020 - 09:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 28 May 2020 - 10:00
Post #33


Member


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



Well you can useit to back up the point that its impossible to read and accept a contract within 20s. Theres a judgement on the MSE forum that shows a judge stating a reading speed of between 200-300 words a min. Compare that to howmany words are on the sign...

Yes. They can use info like that.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:28
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