Parking fine assistance (yay!)
Discussion
Stay in Bed Instead said:
The legislation does not stipulate the word 'invite' must used.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted It does mind
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current
address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and
to pass the notice on to the driver;
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 14th June 10:40
xjay1337 said:
If it was a reasonable charge then fair enough. (as I said I paid £30 before without question).
I guess the point here being that you were charged £50 for overstaying your ticket!IF the car park was busy with people paying the parking charge and wandering off to do other things rather than frequenting the pub, you are reducing the amount of space that is available for bonafide customers of the drinking establishment, meaning you could be directly impacting the level of revenue that the pub can make. Bearing in mind the current cost of a visit to a pub/restaurant these days, do you still think it's an unreasonable FINE?
If I was the pub manager and I saw you turn up, park your car, and then naff off to work somewhere else for 2hrs, I'd stick you a ticket the minute it became obvious you were using the pubs car park for purposes other than going into the pub whether you paid for it or not.
You might find the pub has a problem with people like you, hence the charges and the fines......
super7 said:
I guess the point here being that you were charged £50 for overstaying your ticket!
IF the car park was busy with people paying the parking charge and wandering off to do other things rather than frequenting the pub, you are reducing the amount of space that is available for bonafide customers of the drinking establishment, meaning you could be directly impacting the level of revenue that the pub can make. Bearing in mind the current cost of a visit to a pub/restaurant these days, do you still think it's an unreasonable FINE?
If I was the pub manager and I saw you turn up, park your car, and then naff off to work somewhere else for 2hrs, I'd stick you a ticket the minute it became obvious you were using the pubs car park for purposes other than going into the pub whether you paid for it or not.
You might find the pub has a problem with people like you, hence the charges and the fines......
I believe the parking is free if you use the restaurant, or you pay to park if you don't. The parking is not purely for the patrons of the restaurant. IF the car park was busy with people paying the parking charge and wandering off to do other things rather than frequenting the pub, you are reducing the amount of space that is available for bonafide customers of the drinking establishment, meaning you could be directly impacting the level of revenue that the pub can make. Bearing in mind the current cost of a visit to a pub/restaurant these days, do you still think it's an unreasonable FINE?
If I was the pub manager and I saw you turn up, park your car, and then naff off to work somewhere else for 2hrs, I'd stick you a ticket the minute it became obvious you were using the pubs car park for purposes other than going into the pub whether you paid for it or not.
You might find the pub has a problem with people like you, hence the charges and the fines......
Many people in the area pay to park and then use the shops opposite (so I am told by my site contact).
I honestly understand what you are saying, though.
xjay1337 said:
I believe the parking is free if you use the restaurant, or you pay to park if you don't. The parking is not purely for the patrons of the restaurant.
Many people in the area pay to park and then use the shops opposite (so I am told by my site contact).
I honestly understand what you are saying, though.
I would guess the pub also doesnt own the land either so in theory shouldnt have the ability to contract a company to operate on the land anywayMany people in the area pay to park and then use the shops opposite (so I am told by my site contact).
I honestly understand what you are saying, though.
silverfoxcc said:
OP
The letter fails POFA by not 'inviting' the RK to name the driver.
A small point BUT is is laid down in law what the letter can and cannot say. And that is one part
YOu wshould get a win at POPLA but if you don't want to have a quick check with pepipoo.com use this template
AND read POFA 2012 it is VERY particular on how the PPC should act. IF they don't then they are fair game to tell them to get stuffed!!
Send this to the PPC as the Registered keeper and DO NOT changed one word
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 that you have failed to give the invitation prescribed by 9 (2) (e) 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.
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 personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc
They will either cancelled or send you a POPLA code where you should win ( pepipoo will confirm). if they do not cancel it will cost them 27.00 to send you the code
Hi Silverfox, I checked on pepipoo and one of the helpful people over there said they have given the keeper liability so to be careful what I send.The letter fails POFA by not 'inviting' the RK to name the driver.
A small point BUT is is laid down in law what the letter can and cannot say. And that is one part
YOu wshould get a win at POPLA but if you don't want to have a quick check with pepipoo.com use this template
AND read POFA 2012 it is VERY particular on how the PPC should act. IF they don't then they are fair game to tell them to get stuffed!!
Send this to the PPC as the Registered keeper and DO NOT changed one word
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 that you have failed to give the invitation prescribed by 9 (2) (e) 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.
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 personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc
They will either cancelled or send you a POPLA code where you should win ( pepipoo will confirm). if they do not cancel it will cost them 27.00 to send you the code
Edited by silverfoxcc on Friday 14th June 09:23
I have cut that part out on my draft letter :
What do you think?
"Dear Sirs,
I have just received your Notice to Keeper xxxxx for vehicle VRM xxxx
You have failed to comply with The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, Section 9 (2) (e) of the Act. You have failed to give the invitation prescribed therefore within.
There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.
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 personal details have been removed from your records.
Yours etc"
pavarotti1980 said:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedul...
It does mind
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current
address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and
to pass the notice on to the driver;
It requires an action, not the use of the specific word 'invite'.It does mind
9(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2)The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current
address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and
to pass the notice on to the driver;
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 14th June 10:40
Anyone got a Court claim dismissal based on the omission of the word 'invite'?
You can argue that the OP's PCN demands the information if known rather than invites, but that is a different matter.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
It requires a action, not the use of the specific word 'invite'.
Anyone got a Court claim dismissal based on the omission of the word 'invite'?
You can argue that the OP's PCN demands the information if known rather than invites, but that is a different matter.
It invites but does not mandate them to do so. Key points in legislation otherwise it would just say "shall" which is a finite instruction like it does in s1.72 RTAAnyone got a Court claim dismissal based on the omission of the word 'invite'?
You can argue that the OP's PCN demands the information if known rather than invites, but that is a different matter.
Cannot understand this thread. The OP overstayed, regardless of how unreasonable the fine is the OP accepted this when paying for the parking.
I too think it's s
t that theres companies out there just waiting for you to slip up but considering the OP didnt even use the restaurant the carpark was there to serve I can see why they've handed the management of the carpark to someone else.
I too think it's s
t that theres companies out there just waiting for you to slip up but considering the OP didnt even use the restaurant the carpark was there to serve I can see why they've handed the management of the carpark to someone else.Stay in Bed Instead said:
The PCN states the keeper 'should' notify them of the driver.
Which part of the legislation referenced [POFA 2012 s.9 (2)(b)]on the PCN states that though?What the PCN says and what the legislation says are 2 very different things arent they?
CooperS said:
Cannot understand this thread. The OP overstayed, regardless of how unreasonable the fine is the OP accepted this when paying for the parking.
I too think it's st that theres companies out there just waiting for you to slip up but considering the OP didnt even use the restaurant the carpark was there to serve I can see why they've handed the management of the carpark to someone else.
OP stated the car park is free to pub customers but non-pub customers have to pay so its not just for pub customers because that option wouldnt be availableI too think it's s
t that theres companies out there just waiting for you to slip up but considering the OP didnt even use the restaurant the carpark was there to serve I can see why they've handed the management of the carpark to someone else.pavarotti1980 said:
Which part of the legislation referenced [POFA 2012 s.9 (2)(b)]on the PCN states that though?
What the PCN says and what the legislation says are 2 very different things arent they?
Are you referring to 9(2)(b) or 9(2)(e)? The latter is where the invitation requirement is contained.What the PCN says and what the legislation says are 2 very different things arent they?
You supported silverfoxcc that the PCN must contain the word 'invite'. The legislation that you both quoted does not require that, it requires the act of inviting.
So the issue now is, is 'should' and invitation or a demand?
If the former then the letter complies with the legislation (in that respect at least). If the latter then it does not.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Are you referring to 9(2)(b) or 9(2)(e)? The latter is where the invitation requirement is contained.
You supported silverfoxcc that the PCN must contain the word 'invite'. The legislation that you both quoted does not require that, it requires the act of inviting.
So the issue now is, is 'should' and invitation or a demand?
If the former then the letter complies with the legislation (in that respect at least). If the latter then it does not.
Sorry (e) not (b)You supported silverfoxcc that the PCN must contain the word 'invite'. The legislation that you both quoted does not require that, it requires the act of inviting.
So the issue now is, is 'should' and invitation or a demand?
If the former then the letter complies with the legislation (in that respect at least). If the latter then it does not.
The NTK should invite the keeper to name the driver. Does that mean they are mandated by legislation to do so?
Does the PCN posted contain those words anywhere?
Some help for you
I invite you to a party. You can decline that invitation. It doesnt mean you have to attend.
Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 14th June 11:24
pavarotti1980 said:
Sorry (e) not (b)
The NTK should invite the keeper to name the driver. Does that mean they are mandated by legislation to do so?
I invite you to a party. You can decline that invitation. It doesnt mean you have to attend.
That's not really addressing the issue at hand.The NTK should invite the keeper to name the driver. Does that mean they are mandated by legislation to do so?
I invite you to a party. You can decline that invitation. It doesnt mean you have to attend.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
That's not really addressing the issue at hand.
It is.Does POFA 2012
(a) mandate the keeper to provide the name and servicable address of the driver at the time?
or
(b) state that the PPC should invite the name and servicable address of the driver?
If (a) please post up the legislation
If (b) what does the word invite mean
pavarotti1980 said:
It is.
Does POFA 2012
(a) mandate the keeper to provide the name and servicable address of the driver at the time?
or
(b) state that the PPC should invite the name and servicable address of the driver?
If (a) please post up the legislation
If (b) what does the word invite mean
It's (b) we have agreed that already.Does POFA 2012
(a) mandate the keeper to provide the name and servicable address of the driver at the time?
or
(b) state that the PPC should invite the name and servicable address of the driver?
If (a) please post up the legislation
If (b) what does the word invite mean
Does the NTK that the OP had received constitute an invitation?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff