Parking -no entrance signage

[Timstevo]

Hi I am currently at LOC stage with UKPS. WHe the vehicle was parked (evening when it was dark) the driver placed the vehicle next the the pavement under a 20 mph sign. There were no entrance signs. After two years UKPS have decided on court action.
I have supplied them and their solicitor with photos showing no signs with photographs that display a sign. The gap between these signs is approx one year.
the sign was erected after many emails I sent pointing out the lack of signage. I have an email saying “we will send an operative out to address the situation”

just wondered what people think

[des8]

So you have received a Letter of Claim.

Presumably you appealed the original Notice to Keeper.
Do you still have that NTK?
In that appeal did you identify the driver?
Did they reject that appeal?

Is the LoC from UKPS, or a firm of solicitors (DCB Legal?)

[Timstevo]

Hi LoC from Moorside legal, appealed to IAS but rejected
driver never identified, I have the notice to keeper
i have lots of photos showing no signage ( there is now)
I showed them at appeal but UKPS showed an old google earth pic that the ias agreed was correct although it was not
i pointed out to UKPS their lack Of signage and they replied that they would send an operative to sort it out. The sign was installed nearly a year later
moorside have contacted UKPS and requested details of entrance signage at the time, this was ten plus weeks ago

[des8]

Could you post up a copy of that NTK, first removing identifying details but leaving in all dates and times

[Timstevo]

IMG_0833-compressed.jpeg The original PCN

[des8]

That is a typical UKPS Notice to Keeper which does not comply with the requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability for unpaid charges from the driver to the keeper.

So I would write to Moorside along the following lines:

Dear Sirs
I am in receipt of your Letter of Claim of dd/mm/yy regarding an alleged unpaid parking charge.

I am in possession of the original Notice to Keeper and note it does not comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to specify the period of parking to which the notice applied as prescribed by section 9 (2) (e) of the Act.
Therefore liability for the alleged charge cannot be transferred from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

Accordingly I deny the claim in its entirety, and I do not anticipate hearing from you further about this matter, except for you to confirm you have advised your clients accordingly.

Yours etc

You never know, they may actually stop writing to you!

[Timstevo]

Thankyou I will give it a try
to be clear is this the relevant section

”a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

I ask as this is section a not e

[Timstevo]

Further to my previous posts. The LOC is still with the legal team and their client. I recently pointed out that they were not POFA compliant as the original PCN did not state the period of time the vehicle was on the site.
the response is that it does not matter as ther reasonably conclude that the keeper was the driver as the keeper was given opportunity to name the driver but did not

[des8]

Apologies for missing your post 7.

You could point out their conclusion is not reasonable,
Tell them that if they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) for keeper liability, then they can only pursue the driver.
The DVLA has previously confirmed that providing keeper details does not imply driver liability.
Declining to name the driver likewise does not mean they can assume the keeper was the driver.
Advise them that you assume their "reasonable conclusion" is likely an attempt to misuse Elliott v Loake (1982), which does not apply to private parking cases.
If they continue to claim this, you will consider a complaint to the DVLA and their ATA (BPA or IPC).

[Timstevo]

Apologies for missing your post 7.

You could point out their conclusion is not reasonable,
Tell them that if they are not relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) for keeper liability, then they can only pursue the driver.
The DVLA has previously confirmed that providing keeper details does not imply driver liability.
Declining to name the driver likewise does not mean they can assume the keeper was the driver.
Advise them that you assume their "reasonable conclusion" is likely an attempt to misuse Elliott v Loake (1982), which does not apply to private parking cases.
If they continue to claim this, you will consider a complaint to the DVLA and their ATA (BPA or IPC).

Thankyou I will act accordingly. I will post when I get any more info
thanks for the continued support