DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 38890--------------------------------------------------
Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: September 30, 2024, 4:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Morning all,
I received a ticket for my car parked in a private car park, the
driver wasnt me, it was a friend who didnt put in the number
plate at the venue.
I have submitted an appeal stating the following:
I am appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of The
Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 can cause a keeper appellant to
be deemed to be the liable party. 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 give notice of
keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) 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.
They have come back stating the below.
Can anyone advise me further? Thanks.
HTML https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/jz/wq8qb3dpoezv.png
#Post#: 38892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 30, 2024, 4:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We'll need to see the original notice.
#Post#: 38893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2024, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Simply appealing that the
PCN is not PoFA compliant without stating why is never going
help.
As long as the drivers identity is not revealed, at least at
this stage, is the correct course of action as there could be a
technical failure to fully comply with all the requirements of
PoFA in the NtK, but we won't know util we've seen it. Make sure
that ALL dates, times and location are visible.
#Post#: 38895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: September 30, 2024, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://i.ibb.co/3p5nNj1/Notice-to-keeper.jpg
#Post#: 38898--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2024, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK. So Britannia is relying on PoFA in their NtK to be able to
hold the Keeper liable for the charge should the driver not be
identified.
As you have seen, in their response, they have stated that they
require the drivers details otherwise they will hold you, the
Keeper liable for the charge. However, there is a technical
failure in their NtK that means that it is not fully compliant
with ALL the requirements of PoFA, meaning that they can't hold
you, the Keeper, liable.
Unless you or anyone else can find it, there is no "invitation",
not any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay the charge.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically states that the NtK MUST invite the
Keeper to pay the charge.
Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle
liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific legal
requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK must
include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the
charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name and
address of the driver.
Simply stating in the NtK that the parking charge must be paid
is not sufficient. The wording must provide the keeper with a
clear choice: either pay the charge or provide the driver’s
details. This is important because PoFA is designed to protect
keepers who were not the driver or the driver has not been
disclosed, and this invitation is a mandatory step for
transferring liability from the driver to the keeper.
In your case, the NtK fails to provide this explicit invitation.
Instead of inviting you, the keeper, to pay the charge or
provide the driver’s details, it simply demands payment. This
does not comply with PoFA, because a demand for payment assumes
keeper liability, which cannot apply unless all legal steps have
been followed, including this invitation.
It's important to understand that partial or even substantial
compliance with PoFA is insufficient. If any of the required
elements are missing or incorrectly presented, Britannia cannot
hold the keeper liable for the charge.
Therefore, you should not reveal the identity of the driver. By
doing so, Britannia would then be able to pursue the driver
directly, removing the protection PoFA offers you as the keeper.
While Britannia is likely to reject your initial appeal, you can
then escalate the matter to POPLA. POPLA is required to follow
the law, and you should point out that the NtK does not comply
with PoFA because it fails to include the explicit invitation
required by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). POPLA should then uphold your
appeal and cancel the parking charge.
However, if the POPLA assessor fails to agree with this point,
remember that the county court is the ultimate dispute
resolution service. Only a judge can decide whether you owe the
operator a debt, and non-compliance with PoFA is a strong legal
defence. Should the matter ever escalate to a court claim that
is not discontinued or struck out, a judge will carefully
consider whether the NtK meets the requirements of PoFA, and
non-compliance will likely lead to the claim being dismissed.
#Post#: 38906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: September 30, 2024, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> OK. So Britannia is relying on PoFA in their NtK to be able to
hold the Keeper liable for the charge should the driver not be
identified.
>
> As you have seen, in their response, they have stated that
they require the drivers details otherwise they will hold you,
the Keeper liable for the charge. However, there is a technical
failure in their NtK that means that it is not fully compliant
with ALL the requirements of PoFA, meaning that they can't hold
you, the Keeper, liable.
>
> Unless you or anyone else can find it, there is no
"invitation", not any synonym of the word, for the Keeper to pay
the charge. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically states that the NtK
MUST invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
>
> Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a
vehicle liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific
legal requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK
must include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either
pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name
and address of the driver.
>
> Simply stating in the NtK that the parking charge must be paid
is not sufficient. The wording must provide the keeper with a
clear choice: either pay the charge or provide the driver’s
details. This is important because PoFA is designed to protect
keepers who were not the driver or the driver has not been
disclosed, and this invitation is a mandatory step for
transferring liability from the driver to the keeper.
>
> In your case, the NtK fails to provide this explicit
invitation. Instead of inviting you, the keeper, to pay the
charge or provide the driver’s details, it simply demands
payment. This does not comply with PoFA, because a demand for
payment assumes keeper liability, which cannot apply unless all
legal steps have been followed, including this invitation.
>
> It's important to understand that partial or even substantial
compliance with PoFA is insufficient. If any of the required
elements are missing or incorrectly presented, Britannia cannot
hold the keeper liable for the charge.
>
> Therefore, you should not reveal the identity of the driver.
By doing so, Britannia would then be able to pursue the driver
directly, removing the protection PoFA offers you as the keeper.
>
> While Britannia is likely to reject your initial appeal, you
can then escalate the matter to POPLA. POPLA is required to
follow the law, and you should point out that the NtK does not
comply with PoFA because it fails to include the explicit
invitation required by Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). POPLA should then
uphold your appeal and cancel the parking charge.
>
> However, if the POPLA assessor fails to agree with this point,
remember that the county court is the ultimate dispute
resolution service. Only a judge can decide whether you owe the
operator a debt, and non-compliance with PoFA is a strong legal
defence. Should the matter ever escalate to a court claim that
is not discontinued or struck out, a judge will carefully
consider whether the NtK meets the requirements of PoFA, and
non-compliance will likely lead to the claim being dismissed.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks very much for this information, i will reply with the
above, will update you on how it goes.
#Post#: 38910--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2024, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may want to show us exactly what you intend to put in your
appeal before you submit anything. Better to have it critiqued
rather than piling in with possible errors.
#Post#: 38912--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: September 30, 2024, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You may want to show us exactly what you intend to put in your
appeal before you submit anything. Better to have it critiqued
rather than piling in with possible errors.
>
--- End Quote ---
Will do, ill post it shorlty.
#Post#: 38914--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: Treestumped5035
Date: September 30, 2024, 6:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You may want to show us exactly what you intend to put in your
appeal before you submit anything. Better to have it critiqued
rather than piling in with possible errors.
>
--- End Quote ---
Draft response below:
Dear Sirs,
In response to your last letter regarding NPC 13440136, you have
stated that you require the drivers details otherwise you will
hold the keeper liable however your Notice to Keeper (NTK) does
not state or invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) statins that the NTK must invite the Keeper to
pay the charge.
Under PoFA, in order to hold the registered keeper of a vehicle
liable for a parking charge, the NtK MUST meet specific legal
requirements. One of the key requirements is that the NtK must
include an explicit "invitation" to the keeper to either pay the
charge or, if they were not the driver, provide the name and
address of the driver.
The NtK fails to provide this explicit invitation and therefore
you are unable to hold the keeper liable for the charge.
I do not expect to hear from you again, or your debt collectors,
except to confirm that no further action will be taken on this
matter and my person details have been removed from your
records.
Yours faithfully
#Post#: 38919--------------------------------------------------
Re: Britannia Parking Ticket help
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2024, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe expand slightly with something such as this:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 13440136
>
> I am writing in response to your recent letter, in which you
indicated that you would hold the registered keeper liable
unless the driver’s details are provided. However, your Notice
to Keeper (NtK) fails to comply with ALL the requirements of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
>
> While your NtK contains a request for the driver's details if
the keeper was not driving, which I wasn't, it does not include
the mandatory "invitation" for the keeper to pay the parking
charge, as required under PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> It is important to note that partial, or even substantial
compliance with PoFA is not sufficient. The NtK must comply
fully with ALL the requirements of PoFA if you intend to hold
the registered keeper liable. Since your NtK fails to meet ALL
these requirements, you cannot transfer liability for this
charge to the keeper.
>
> You have no hope of success at POPLA, and I suggest you save
us all a waste of time and effort by cancelling this PCN now or
issuing a POPLA code so that I can escalate the appeal.
>
> Yours faithfully,
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page