Parking penalty charge received at least 26 days after "offence" |
Parking penalty charge received at least 26 days after "offence" |
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 13:55
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
[attachment=61175:PCN.pdf]Good afternoon all
Received a speculative invoice from All Parking Services UK Limited for failure to display a valid permit/ticket in NW2 (Cricklewood). The infringement happened on the 22/12/18, but their letter to me is dated as the 14.01.19 and was received on the 16.01.19, thus far exceeding the 14 day deadline. I have drafted the following two letters as a reply to them and would gladly accept ANY guidance/advice on which is the best one to send, or any alterations that need implementing. I have attached their original letter to me and a google earth picture of the alleged parking infringement location. I am aware the date of the picture is Feb 2018 and I may need to revisit the site to take upto date photos? Many thanks in advance. Bullit VERSION A Dear Sirs, Re: Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper – Ref ******** Thank you for your letter dated 14 January 2019. I am challenging this notice on the grounds that your signage was inadequate and your demand does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss and was not a genuine offer of a contract. In this case, I am putting you to strict proof that the signage on which you rely a) Was visible at the location the car was parked and could be reasonably seen by the driver at the time of the event and that signage complies with the DfT recommendations for size, font and illumination b) That the information on the sign was coherent and cogent. I would also put you to strict proof that the claim you are making matches these coherent and cogent terms (if indeed they were). c) I wish you to demonstrate that you have the rights to claim for you losses on this site such as a lease, a contract from the leaseholder or a copy of the Non-Domestic Rating Valuation showing you are conducting a business there and paying rates. Furthermore, The Notice to Keeper was received outside of the 14 day limit imposed under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and hence you have not met the criteria necessary to hold the Registered Keeper liable for this charge. You must now pursue this with the driver of the vehicle. Any further pursuit of me in connection with this charge will be deemed as harassment and action may be taken against you and your principal accordingly. I would also put you to strict proof that your charge represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and/or the amount does not represent a penalty whose purpose is to deter. Finally I insist you cancel this charge and confirm the same. Should you disagree with the points above, send a POPLA code so we can have the matter investigated by your industry's ADR. For anything other than a cancellation and a POPLA code, my charge is £60 per reply. Acceptance will be by performance. Yours faithfully, Registered keeper *****************OR VERSION B************************** Dear Sirs, Re: Parking Charge Notice to Registered Keeper – Ref ******* I am writing with regards to your speculative invoice dated 14 January 2018. I am challenging the Parking Charge Notice with the above reference on the following grounds: 1. The Notice to Keeper was received outside of the 14 day limit imposed under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and hence you have not met the criteria necessary to hold the Registered Keeper liable for this charge. You must now pursue this with the driver of the vehicle. Any further pursuit of me in connection with this charge will be deemed as harassment and action may be taken against you and your principal accordingly. 2. You do not have the legal capacity to offer contracts at the location 3. The sum demanded is a punitive charge and a penalty. The Invoice is a punitive charge and is a penalty disguised as a speculative invoice. 4. The amount that you have demanded cannot possibly represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss to your company. If it is to be believed that the sum demanded is from an invoice in relation to breach of contract then the sum demanded is not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss. Should you disagree please provide a breakdown of liquidated costs. Of course these cannot include staff wages, uniforms and general businesses expenses which would have been incurred anyway. 5. Your signage was inadequate If you believe differently and that the keeper is indeed liable, send the validation code to refer the matter to POPLA where I will require disclosure of the terms of your contract that you claim to provide land-owner rights. Finally I insist you cancel this charge and confirm the same. Should you disagree with the points above, send a POPLA code so we can have the matter investigated by your industry's ADR. For anything other than a cancellation and a POPLA code, my charge is £60 per reply. Acceptance will be by performance. Yours faithfully, Registered keeper This post has been edited by Bullit70: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Attached File(s)
PCN__1_.pdf ( 78.68K )
Number of downloads: 87
Roman_Way__1_.pdf ( 254.41K ) Number of downloads: 76 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 13:55
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:13
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,640 Joined: 30 May 2013 Member No.: 62,328 |
you left the reference number on the ntk
is the v5 details correct not a hire car This post has been edited by Albert Ross: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:14 -------------------- The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:24
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 419 Joined: 22 Oct 2018 Member No.: 100,530 |
Neither - both talk about PEOL which is dead since Beavis - Ostell has a much simpler one. Just go for the failure to meet PoFA requirements and save the rest for POPLA.
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:25
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
New PCN added!
V5 details are correct, NOT a hire car. Thanks B |
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:32
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
Use this, as drafted by Ostell:
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 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. Yours etc. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 14:52
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Was there a Notice to Driver? That doesnt look like an ANPR to me, if there was a screen ticket then the timings need to be looked at.
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 15:09
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
Nothing left on the windscreen and only the aforementioned letter has been received. Looking at their PCN, it does look rather basic/amateurish compared to others I have seen over the years!
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 15:13
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
I think it might be worth mentioning that there was also no NtD received, especially since they dont have an image of it on the notice to you. Just in case they say there was one...
|
|
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 - 15:14
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
The small print at the bottom explains the amateur appearance of it, and the fact that the PCN refers to APS as 'our client.'
-------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 15:47
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
Use this, as drafted by Ostell: 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 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. Yours etc. Many thanks Ostell/cabbyman for the above. Someone else on this thread mentioned about there being no NTD on the windscreen. I revisited the site today and the signage is very poor. Should I add these 2 points to the above letter or use them in an appeal via POPLA further down the line? Thanks B |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:01
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Do not add to the template. Thats why its a template
Use it as part of any POPLA appeal, which you can start drafting. |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:05
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
Do not add to the template. Thats why its a template Use it as part of any POPLA appeal, which you can start drafting. Hi Nosferatu Just to clarify; I send the template letter in its entirety with nothing added and that should result in the PCN being cancelled? Thanks |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:13
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No, why do you think they woudl cancel it? Have you done ANY reading around on how parking companies make theirmoney? HInt: if they cancel the charge, they definiteily get nothing. If they send you drivel, you MAY pay them. Guess which route works for them...
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:18
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
Having read through different threads and forums, I was under the impression this would be cancelled as it was issued 26 days after the infringement. Surely that is game over for them?
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:20
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No
You read incorrectly While they cannot hold the KEEPER liable, as they failed to meet the requiremetns of POFA to do so, that doenst mean they wil give up. For a start, POFA is only about holding the keeper liable, instead of the driver If they dont meet POFA requirements they can chase the driver - and some just state "well we will assume thats the keeper", and take to court on that basis. |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:27
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: 15 Dec 2017 Member No.: 95,566 |
Why is the 14 day rule in place for sending out PCN's, if the parking company can still issue a PCN after 26 days? Surely this makes a mockery of the rule?
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:31
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Did you read anything of what I wrote?
14 days is only to engage keeper liability when there was no windscreen ticket If they dont comply with POFA then they can only chase the driver. Please, do some research. Stop posting questions asked 100s ot times. |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:39
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Why is the 14 day rule in place for sending out PCN's, if the parking company can still issue a PCN after 26 days? Surely this makes a mockery of the rule? It makes a mockery of the intention of the POFA, yes. But if you give a parking firm an inch they will take a mile, and so they thought up this jolly wheeze that they could issue ''non-POFA'' PCNs late (driver only ones) and the Trades Body and the DVLA said, ''oh, OK then, we'll allow a 2 tier system, carry on!'' Loads of PPCs ignore the POFA and chose not to 'use' it. Not what Parliament intended. But victim drivers are stupid or naive enough to pay up anyway, as they are scared it's a real PCN. Thus, it works for the scammers. |
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:44
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
The 14 days rule is not in place for sending out PCN's.
Its in place for holding the keeper liable. They follow a model of charging people for breaching the terms and conditions of a contract. The contract is formed when the DRIVER reads the sign on site, and decides to leave the car parked, in return for abiding by the signs. If the terms are breached then the DRIVER may be liable to a charge. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act is a perverse bit of legislation that allows the parking company to pursue the KEEPER (assumed to be the Registered Keeper unless proved otherwise) for the charges that the DRIVER is allegedly liable for. However to invoke this piece of legislation the parking company must abide by the many criteria within this legislation. One of the criteria is that the Registered Keeper received the Notice to Keeper within 14 days. If they fail to meet this or any of the other criteria then they can no longer pursue the Keeper, and their only option is to pursue the Driver (which, if no one tells them, they do not know). It doesn't invalidate the alleged liability for the contract breach (the parking ticket) but - if they don't know who the driver is - it creates a massive obstacle that they are unlikely to be able to overcome. That won't stop them trying though. They are greedy parasites and only interested in money, not in managing people's car parks for them, that's just a cover for what is a massive money making scheme! -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 - 16:51
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 564 Joined: 15 Nov 2017 Member No.: 95,103 |
Having read through different threads and forums, I was under the impression this would be cancelled as it was issued 26 days after the infringement. Surely that is game over for them? You assume that they are reasonable people. PPC's are made up of the people who used to clamp ambulances attending emergency calls, lone women late at night, the disabled, etc... and then charge upwards of £300 to take the clamp off. If you pushed them just a little bit they'd fall over the line to criminality. They dont care about the law. All they care about is scaring you into paying. So they wont back down, they will send more letters, NASTY ones with TITLE IN BIG RED INK until you pay up - or defeat them at POPLA or court. Thats it really. If you stick around and READ up on the process you will find out and be able to beat them with the help of the people on here. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 10:42 |