PCN overload

[Trog-girl]

This arrived at the weekend, I think they've accepted argument for first 2 that were not within 14 days, and this letter is in reference to the 3rd(but they referenced all 3 on same letter). I havnt received any more so I'm happy to just pay it at this point..as long as there are no more! Thanks so much for you help

[ostell]

It looks as though they are referring to the last of the letters, hopefully having accepted the failure for the first two.

write back to them pointing out they have to comply with all the requirements of POFA to hold you liable for PCN xxxxx and they have singularly failed to state 9 (2) (f) correctly. For your reference 9 (2) (f) states:

warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

Please compare with the wording of your notice to keeper

[Trog-girl]

This is what the notice says, seems to cover it IMG_20200915_103158.jpg

[ostell]

That was not the wording on the full page you posted. So the last one has different text?

Perhaps you could post that last one up in full, redacted of course.

[Trog-girl]

IMG_20200915_114526.jpg You're right, I've looked at all 3 together now and the first 2 don't have this paragraph in full! Here is the last letter

[ostell]

Dear sirs

Ref PCN xxxx VRM xxxx

As the keeper I have been to the site to inspect the location of the alleged transgression.

The signage in the car park is of a forbidding nature. It is limited to "Authorised Vehicles Only" and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without authorisation or a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship with the driver. To infer otherwise is perverse as this would be in contradiction to the sign.

I refer you to the following case law:
PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016],
UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016],
Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] –
In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Yours etc.

[Trog-girl]

IMG_20200928_170626.jpgIMG_20200928_170718.jpg

[Trog-girl]

They seem to have ignored the fact I did submit initial appeal within the 14 days, first letter dated 7th Sept, second letter 14th Sept, so both within 14 days of date of issue (31/08/20)

[ostell]

So write back and complain about the 14 days and ask them for an explanation of how they believe they offered you, an unauthorised vehicle, a contract that could be breached? You are demanding a penalty.

[Trog-girl]

I have now received these! IMG_20201003_174916.jpgIMG_20201003_175029.jpg

[ostell]

Sirs

with reference to your latest letters re PCNs xxxxx & xxxxx

I have previously informed you that both these PCNs failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act to be able to hold me, the keeper, liable. If you reference my previous letters you will note that you specifically failed to meet the requirement to deliver the Notice to Keeper within 14 days.

Please carefully read your latest letters and you will see that the time between the parking event and the issue of the notice exceeds 14 days. POFA assumes 2 working days for delivery so you are well outside the required time for delivery.

Continued correspondence on this matter when I have absolutely no liability is causing distress and harassment. I would suggest that you take time to study the case of Ferguson v British Gas and the results.

[Trog-girl]

Here's another one! It should be the last. Are they serious!? Issued 4 weeks after the incident!IMG_20201004_194026.jpg

[ostell]

They've also reverted to the incorrect keeper liability statement. So send the failed to deliver within 14 days appeal with addition.

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 of 14 days as prescribed by section 9 (4) of the Act.

In addition you failed to give notice of keeper liability in the format required by 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.

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


Ss usual first class post with free certificate of posting from a post office

[Trog-girl]

Can I send above letters together? And does it matter if I don't use post office, I have sent previous letters first class recorded post from my workplace

[ostell]

Send under separate covers, don't confuse them!

By all means use signed for but they can refuse delivery. My experience of signed for is that it doesn't get signed (before covid) and you have no proof of delivery. With the certificate you xan show it was sent