NTK served outside of the 29 - 57 day guideline set out by IPC - Next actions? |
NTK served outside of the 29 - 57 day guideline set out by IPC - Next actions? |
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 12:09
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
Hi all,
Received this NTK, from New World Facilities East Essex (Creditor) by Parking Collection Services - They are member of the IPC, who's code of practice state in Part C '(q) Be given to or served on the Keeper between day 29 and day 57 after the day the Notice to Driver is given (which is counted as day 1).' https://theipc.info/uploads/vjnl0XFpge5CLwG...001.10.2016.pdf If my calculations are right, NTK was issued on day 69 - so does this invalidate the NTK and therefore the charge? If so, what is my next course of action... Thank you all! This post has been edited by cserki: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 12:17 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 12:09
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 12:29
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
They are claiming 'keeper liability' where there can be none.
I think the DVLA may be interested in this as personal data has been accessed and the purpose misrepresented. Possibly a data protection angle. Unfortunately, the charge isn't simply 'invalidated' as they can still pursue the keeper under the presumption they were driving. First appeal should simply be that the NTK has been issued outside the necessary period and keeper liability cannot exist. Might be worth dropping in that potential misuse of personal data. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 13:39
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
Right okay, so they do not have keeper liability because they sent the NTK outside of day 57? And then assuming that this appeal is rejected, would they be able to take me to court as the keeper of the vehicle, without keeper liability? Thanks
|
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 13:58
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
The sign on entry to the car park also states a different fee of £100 - rather than the £120 that is being requested... as well as stating BPA rather than IPC |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 14:05
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
That's OK, as it's a forbidding sign with no effort to create a contract, as no contract was created it doesn't bind either side.
However it does mean a that only the landholder can sue, not PCS. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 15:24
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Just a quick note in that it is not up to the IPC (or BPS for that matter) to determine the times for delivery of a NTK. It is all set down in POFA 2012 paragraph 8. It's between day 28 and 56 for the delivery of the notice to keeper so yes you can write to them and state that they have failed to follow the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable and therefore they must not contact you again and contact the driver at the relevant time.
Contact the DVLA and see when the registered keeper's details were requested. If it's outside day 56 then there's a possible claim for misuse of data as they know there could be no keeper liability. |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 15:37
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Interestingly, the sign says "the driver's details may be requested from the DVLA". I cannot see any warning about "the keeper's details".
|
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 17:09
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
Just a quick note in that it is not up to the IPC (or BPS for that matter) to determine the times for delivery of a NTK. It is all set down in POFA 2012 paragraph 8. It's between day 28 and 56 for the delivery of the notice to keeper so yes you can write to them and state that they have failed to follow the requirements of POFA to hold the keeper liable and therefore they must not contact you again and contact the driver at the relevant time. Contact the DVLA and see when the registered keeper's details were requested. If it's outside day 56 then there's a possible claim for misuse of data as they know there could be no keeper liability. KADOE allows up to 6 months to access keeper details -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 17:39
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
Email David Dunford:
david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk copy in aos@britishparking.co.uk He has already warned DRPlus (aka PCS) about doing this. That are not allowed to use that version NTK, stating a keeper is liable when the NTK is too late for that. And the sum exceeds the maximum allowed in a NTK (can't be over £100). Obviously word it as the registered keeper, not talking about the driver/the event, merely complaining about the letter misleading you on keeper liability when this is not possible after this delay, and trying to extort £120 from you which exceeds the maximum for NTK (first appeal) stage. Attach a copy of both sides of that offending NTK to your complaint email and make it clear you are complaining both about the parking firm and PCS aka Debt Recovery Plus, who you are aware have been warned more than once by the DVLA about misleading keepers about liability. Meanwhile, also appeal it as keeper, as per whatever the letter says about keepers right to appeal (don;t post it snail mail though). You could say the same thing in the challenge - ''Tough you are too late for keeper liability and how dare you demand £120 which exceeds the amount in a NTK for a BPA member (this not being a debt collector letter, but a NTK). Send me a POPLA code and by the way, you've been reported to the DVLA because it is known that Debt Recovery Plus/PCS have been warned before about using a POFA NTK when it is too late, and here you are doing it again - high time you were banned by the DVLA. Cancel or send me a POPLA code and don't try the over-used trick of denying or pretending to send a POPLA code, as the DVLA and BPA will be investigating this one.'' Regards''. |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 17:58
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
Thanks for that, will do that asap. So it's worth asking for POPLA, even though on the NTK it has the IPC logo?
|
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 18:13
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
I was going by the sign which misleads you again!
It says NWF are BPA AOS members when they are not - that's a breach of the CPUTRs section on 'misleading actions'. I would add that into the complaint instead and remove the request for a POPLA code. Attach a copy of the sign as well, to show the DVLA these aspects of complaints: - the misleading AOS membership on the sign (NWF) - the misleading NTK which tries to claim keeper liability - the NTK tries to extort £120 from a keeper (and make it clear that this is NOT a debt collector letter, it is the first letter (NTK). - complain that you wanted to copy in the IPC but can't because they do not provide an email address and expect the complainant to give all sorts of data just in order to 'register' to make a complaint which is possibly why the BPA are widely believed to get more complaints than the IPC who make it very difficult for consumers, it appears. And don't copy in the BPA to the actual complaint after all, not straight away, not as a complaint if NWF aren't one of 'theirs'. Instead forward the complaint 'sent' email to the BPA afterwards, so the sign still shows as an attachment and point out at this site NWF are claiming to be AOS members when they are not. And what are the BPA going to do about that? You might also want to report NWF to the ICO for all of the above as well (you can do that online and focus mainly on the fact they are misleading you by telling you that a keeper is liable) and add in the observation that this parking firm's website uses the ICO logo: http://www.newworldfacilities.co.uk/about-us.html For the ICO you will have to spoon-feed them para 8 of the POFA Schedule 4 and spell out why in law, a keeper cannot be held liable by this letter despite its misleading paragraph. Do not expect the ICO to know. They will possibly think 'PPCs can hold keepers liable now...there's the POFA isn't there...' and the ICO will not be anything like as familiar with schedule 4 as we are. This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 18:18 |
|
|
Sun, 30 Apr 2017 - 18:22
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 153 Joined: 24 May 2015 Member No.: 77,413 |
The NTK says if the parking charge remains unpaid, then they will pass it onto debt recovery where further costs may be added.
However the sign (the contract) only states it will be passed to debt recovery with no mention of further costs. So contractually the driver never entered into a contract that allows them to add further costs. -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 1 May 2017 - 05:10
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
QUOTE Email David Dunford: david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk copy in aos@britishparking.co.uk +1 He's going to have a busy week with these next week. Seems to be a lot of "mistakes" about at the moment. |
|
|
Mon, 1 May 2017 - 12:12
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
Good stuff, sent off appeal and complaint emails - no doubt will not hear anything for a while now! Thanks for advise.
|
|
|
Tue, 9 May 2017 - 10:09
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
Any idea's for next step?
"Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). As per the International Parking Community's (IPC's) Code of Practice, a motorist has 21 days from the date of the PCN being issued to challenge the charge. Appeals can only be accepted after this date under exceptional circumstances. What you need to do now Please provide details evidence of an exceptional circumstance that you believe should entitle you to challenge the charge after the official appeal period has ended. Please ensure that the above is provided by Alternatively, the full amount of £120.00 will need to be paid by the same date." |
|
|
Tue, 9 May 2017 - 12:54
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You have no constructive easy next step with the ppc
What about your complaints? Chase up if needed. |
|
|
Tue, 9 May 2017 - 12:58
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 8 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,737 |
So it is ignore then and they won't consider my appeal. Could I not say I am appealing the NTK as the keeper, and therefore would not have had a Notice to Driver?
Yes the DVLA sent a lengthy letter explaining that everything was above board, copied in the PPC's information request - they suggested I complain to IPC. |
|
|
Tue, 9 May 2017 - 13:26
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
You can say whatever you like. You're not going to get a different response
You could remind them that as keeper you are appealing and it is unreasonable to refuse to consider an appeal made after receipt of the notice to keeper. But again, don't expect these parasites to do anything. Please give the precise response. Your paraphrasing is useless for our purpose. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:46 |