Tricky Parking Charge Notice - One Parking Solution

[Bread88]

Hi all,
Wondering if you can help with this one...

My partner received a PCN from One Parking Solution recently, about an offence dated 28/05/2018.

The initial notice was sent to the Motor Trader, on 20th July 2018, who sold her vehicle, as she'd not long bought it. They then passed her details to One Parking Solution Ltd. (Yes, I'm aware there may be a pretty serious breach of GDPR here - I've emailed them to request info on why they did this, particularly without notifying her prior to passing the details across).

They then sent the PCN to her old address, as she had moved out by that point, and in fact when the PCN finally arrived at our new address, she was no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle.*

Subsequently the charge has gone to £160 and is being chased by Gladstones Solicitors (I'm aware of their reputation - and their tenacity to get these things paid).*

Myself and my partner wrote to them with the letter attached, (redacted obviously), and sent on 23rd October 2019. They have now (finally) responded with the attached document.*

Just the first question I have is the fact that they sent the Parking Charge Notice some 53 days after the initial alleged offence: does that have any standing? Or they pursuing this purely under a breach of contract?*

The second question I have is that we have at no point admitted who the driver was, and given the length of time elapsed, I believe she is well within her rights to say that she cannot remember who the driver was (albeit they have provided photos of the driver - which ironically is not her). Surely, as purely the registered keeper and not the driver, they cannot prosecute her, on the basis that; if they are trying to follow this through on the basis of Breach of Contract, then she was not the person who broke the contract. She presumably doesn't have any legal obligation to name the driver of the vehicle?

Anyway, fire away with any questions, and I look forward to chatting this over.*

Best,

[ostell]

What I am trying to say is that there can be no keeper liability because of the POFA failures

Have a read of POFA, especially para 8 or 9**
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted
*

[Bread88]

Hi Ostell,

Thanks for your response. Yes, hindsight is wonderful - there's a few issues I'm aware of now that I wasn't at that point, sadly.*

So in essence, you're suggesting that I should basically respond to say that contrary to their statement in point 5, they are holding the keeper liable, rather than the driver of the vehicle - with whom the contract, that has been allegedly breached, was initially created, and as such their client is not complying with PoFA 2012? And point out that Paragraph 4(5) limits keeper liability to the original PCN.

Have I interpreted that correctly? Apologies, the legal jargon goes slightly above me, and these funny A*s confuse the text...

Thanks again for your response!

Your initial appeal should have been:



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 prescribed by section 9 (4) or 8 (4), 14 or 56 days, 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

You are in the state you are in so in response to the solicitors letter tell them that contrary to their statement that they are holding the keeper liable the keeper has no such liability because their client failed to comply with the requirements of POFA

As they are pursuing as the keeper point out that, contrary to their clients CoP, POFA itself limits keeper liability to the amount on the original PCN, para 4(5). Attempting to claim more is an abuse of process and may result in the claim being thrown out by the court


The provision of the contract is relevant to show that their client has the authority of the land holder to operate.


Signage at the site is relevant as the signage allegedly created the contract with the driver that they claim was breached

*

[ostell]

Your initial appeal should have been:



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 prescribed by section 9 (4) or 8 (4), 14 or 56 days, 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

You are in the state you are in so in response to the solicitors letter tell them that contrary to their statement that they are holding the keeper liable the keeper has no such liability because their client failed to comply with the requirements of POFA

As they are pursuing as the keeper point out that, contrary to their clients CoP, POFA itself limits keeper liability to the amount on the original PCN, para 4(5). Attempting to claim more is an abuse of process and may result in the claim being thrown out by the court


The provision of the contract is relevant to show that their client has the authority of the land holder to operate.


Signage at the site is relevant as the signage allegedly created the contract with the driver that they claim was breached