unclear photos

[luxardo]

Attached back and from copies of NTK received (it was within 14 days)
Is it compliant with POFA ?
The registration number is not visible on the photos but the close ups show it clearly.
However it appears to be 2 close up pics of the front plate as they are both white and obviously the rear plate is yellow
Is there anything else that is non compliant with the act ?

[ostell]

The pictures of the plates are usually by infrared so not true colours.

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 give the invitation to keeper in the format prescribed by section 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

First class post with free certificate of posting from any Post Office

They have also failed to give the period of parking. Moving in front of a camera us not parking, and creditor not identified

Will help with your POPLA appeal

[luxardo]

Creditor is mentioned, last paragraph of the 1st section on rear of notice.
I would have thought that 9 (2) e is covered ? What exactly do you think is wrong with their wording ?
Is the period of parking not stated where it says “period in car park” ? Is that not compliant ?
I also notice in the 2nd paragraph of second section (on rear) they state 29 days. Should it not be 28 ?

thanks for this much appreciated

[ostell]

So I've missed creditor again!!

Is the wording the same as defined in POFA? If not even close then they have failed.* Are they inviting you to pay or give the driver name?* Read 9 (2) starts with "must" and the subsections start with "state".* They don't.*

The 29 days is close to the 28 days from the date after but strictly speaking does not comply

How can you be parking if you are moving in front of a* camera.* POFA says myst state period of parking


*

[luxardo]

Gotcha ... many thanks

[luxardo]

OPINIONS PLEASE
Dear Sirs,

I have received 2 letters from you :-

• A parking charge notice dated 10/12/19
• A final demand dated 14/01/20

Both relate to an alleged event on 04/12/19 in xxxxxxxxxxxxx involving my vehicle.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle xxx xxx, no notice to driver was handed to the driver or placed on the vehicle.
In order to transfer liability for any alleged charge to me, the keeper, you are obliged, under The protection of freedoms act 2012 Schedule 4 (6) 1b, to give a notice to keeper in*strict compliance*with section 9 (2) of the act.

Your notice to keeper fails to*strictly comply*with the act, namely, but not limited to :-

(9) 2a you have failed to specify the period of parking, moving in front of a camera is not evidence of parking. Neither is stating a vehicle has entered and exited a carpark at certain times. In fact there is no evidence at all that the vehicle was even parked.
(9) 2f you have warned the keeper that if the charge remains unpaid after 29 days you have the right to claim charges, the act stipulates 28 days.
(9) 2e The act stipulates you “must state” that you do not know the name of the driver or a current address for service. Your notice merely hints that you do not know the driver and makes no mention of service.
(9) 7 you have provided no evidence other than photographs of a vehicle in which the registration number is not visible.

As you have failed to strictly comply the act I do not expect to hear from you again unless to inform me that no further action will be taken. I caution you that should you proceed with any civil recovery action I shall make application for costs on the basis your claim is frivolous, vexatious and has, given the above points, no reasonable prospect of success.

[ostell]

9 2 e is that the invitation us not given in the prescribed format