Notice to Keeper (from Premier Parking Solutions), Car was with the dealer at the time |
Notice to Keeper (from Premier Parking Solutions), Car was with the dealer at the time |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:19
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 27 Jan 2014 Member No.: 68,313 |
Just after a bit of advice please.
My mum received a Notice to Keeper yesterday for a parking charge relating to a car she owned in May (no longer the owner). As the time of the alleged parking offence, the car was in the care of the dealer/garage (and had been in their care for the previous 10 days). As it was at the dealer, we have no idea who the driver was at the time (it got the ticket 0.3 of a mile away from the dealer by a pub!) and the form asks for the driver's name and address. Should we put the driver as our contact at the garage (a lowly sales exec) or the general manager? Incidentally, the alleged offence occurred on 13th May and the notice to keeper was posted on 13th June so I assume they've missed the boat anyway? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:19
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:40
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Dear Sir
Ref **** I refer to this parking notice I was not the driver of the vehicle on the date that you mention Neither was I its keeper Notwithstanding the above comment, you failed to serve a valid Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Protection of Freedoms Act The matter is therefore closed Yours Faithfully |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:59
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 27 Jan 2014 Member No.: 68,313 |
Thanks Redivi.
I just want the matter shot of and no comeback from PPS (as it's involving my 84 year old mother who's ill) so want the dealer to deal with any comeback. On their form, can I just put driver name unknown and the dealer's address and add your suggested cover letter on the front? ETA: Just reading that the notice to keeper should be received between 28-56 days from the date of the alleged offence (in which case the letter is compliant). No idea whether a ticket was issued at the time or not. Happy to post a redacted copy of the letter if that would be helpful. This post has been edited by jojo01: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:16 |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:31
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 938 Joined: 24 Sep 2014 Member No.: 73,212 |
Is there a change of keeper involved here? Car was 'in the care of the garage' so was it transferred/sold/part-ex to them in May? If so, was DVLA notified and when?
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 27 Jan 2014 Member No.: 68,313 |
It was sold back to them but on 4th June. It had been with the garage to sort some things out which were never completed, so it was sold back to them.
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 14:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,167 Joined: 6 Oct 2012 Member No.: 57,558 |
It could be argued the Garage was the keeper while they had the car. Would the Garage take responsibility ?
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:36
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
I think a letter to them that the garage was the keeper, as suggested in post #2, but without the mention of POFA. If you don't intend to have any dealings with the gargae again then tell them the name of the garage. Do you have invoices etc from the garage that cover this period.
Did the notice to keeper mention that a notice had been issued previously? If it does not then add in the POFA but |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:46
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
That's the view I'm taking and it's a good idea to name the dealer as the keeper
It's the argument that the DVLA used to justify changing registrations to Midway Car Parks when they fancied cars that they'd towed If the pub is a short distance from the dealership, it's likely that the driver is a regular customer and in a position to get it cancelled Is the dealership part of a chain because a firm message to its Head Office might produce results if PPS continues to pester There's a gap in POFA The PPC can't recover payment from the keeper if the car is stolen but, unlike council tickets, there's no such exemption if it was used without the owner's consent |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:00
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
But I think the POFA statement that the keeper is assumed to be the registered keeper unless it can be shown otherwise. In 2 (1), the definitions.
“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper; Would be sufficient. |
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 21:53
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
But I think the POFA statement that the keeper is assumed to be the registered keeper unless it can be shown otherwise. In 2 (1), the definitions. “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper; Would be sufficient. Sufficient for what? To prevail in court? I sure hope so. To get a rapacious PPC to see sense and voluntarily cancel the charge? Highly unlikely... I think the OP will just have to assume that the PPC will continue its usual harassing tactics until such time as it decides to throw in the towel (which could be later, rather than sooner, depending on the PPC). --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 06:11
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Sufficient to name the garage as the keeper I would suggest?
-------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 22:18
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
|
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 05:08
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Because the only person that can be held liable is the keeper at the time.
“keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper; |
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 07:30
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
Premier Park do harass the RK and don't give up easily. I would be very firm with them that the garage was both keeper and driver at the time. Make it absolutely clear that they are wasting their time chasing you and that you will not be paying them anything!
|
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 09:02
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,199 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
PP do use court, and stating early on they weren't the keeper and who was seems entirely the actions of a reasonable person. the OP wasn't responsible for the ticket so why should he have to put up with the hassle?
Unless the garage deny being the keeper there would be a clear DPA issue with them continuing to chase someone who had provided the details of the person they should be chasing. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 09:32
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Because the only person that can be held liable is the keeper at the time. “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper; Yes, we know all that. But is still means that the RK will need to prove the contrary, most likely in court. As the burden of proof in such case would shift onto the RK, merely alleging that the garage was the keeper won't make this PPC go away. (Unless, of course, the garage steps up and pays the charge, which, of course, they should, but...) Which also means that, unless the OP fancies suing the PPC on his/her own initiative re the DPA breach, the harassment will likely continue until such time as the PPC decides to give up or chance court. If it were so easy to shut down the magic PPC money tree, everyone would be doing it. By all means, notify PP that the RK was not the keeper and garage was--this is essential in any case--and make certain proof of such notification is retained in case it is needed in court. I just don't think that will stop the PPC from shaking the tree. Perhaps PP will prove me wrong, and show that it has some intelligence and decency by cancelling the PCN or letting the OP know that it will be pursuing the garage instead? --Churchmouse |
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 11:22
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 647 Joined: 10 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,458 |
I can confirm from first hand experience that PP has absolutely no decency or intelligence and will certainly try to harass the RK if the garage don't wish to pay. It is up to the OP to provide whatever evidence is available to PP to try to convince them that it would be futile to continue to pursue the RK and show no hint of weakness. PPC's like PP prey on the weak. Once the OP has named the keeper and driver then any obligations they might have had as RK are removed.
|
|
|
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 - 12:15
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
I'm not clear from this thread whether the OP is dealing with Premier Park or Premier Parking Solutions
IIRC they're closely connected When I was at Parkex last year, I passed stands for Mil Collections, DRP, DCBL and ZZPS - even stopping at a couple The only stand that gave me such creeps that I walked quickly past on the other side of the aisle was Premier Park The first court case I was involved with was a Premier Park double-dip : The severely disabled defendant, the registered keeper, needed constant care and there was no possibility that the car would be present for that time The car never stopped in the area managed by Premier - the entrance served a second car park where it dropped off and collected a passenger The first hearing, that was attended by the defendant, required an adjournment After seeing the defendant's disability, Premier still continued the case The judge made the decision that the defendant did not have to attend the second hearing and afterward complimented her on the quality of her evidence pack |
|
|
Thu, 12 Jul 2018 - 15:41
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 103 Joined: 27 Jan 2014 Member No.: 68,313 |
Sorry for the delay getting back to you all on this, mum ended up back in hospital so we've been busy with that. Thanks for all your advice though, it's massively appreciated.
The dealer agreed to take care of everything so we've handed it over to them and let PPS have their details so fingers crossed that's the end of it. On the offchance it isn't though, I'll be back! Thanks again. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:27 |