PCN - Help Wanted

[llanboy83]

Hi,

 

I'm writing on here as i'm trying to help a friend whose received a PCN from a PPC.

 

Reduced: 56% of original size [ 1130 x 1600 ] - Click to view full image

 

He received the above PCN for a car he sold to a close relative. At the time the PCN is dated the car was already sold and the documents had been sent to the DVLA in the post. After reading on here I recommended that he ignore the Notice and file away in a drawer.

 

About 2 weeks later the following notice was received.

 

Reduced: 56% of original size [ 1130 x 1600 ] - Click to view full image

 

When this was received, threatening court action and affecting credit ratings, my friend got a bit worried and didn't want to just ignore it. On another note, the first notice says that £75 is to be paid within 28 days from 23/10/2008, this second notice now says the £75 is to be paid within 7 days, which is only 22 days from the date of the first notice.

 

Anyway, he wrote a letter to the PPC stating that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle, and to not contact him again, other wish he would report them for harrassment.

 

Then, last week, he received the following letter from them.

 

Reduced: 56% of original size [ 1130 x 1600 ] - Click to view full image

 

This letter is telling him he has to inform them who the new registered owner of the vehicle is or he will be liable for the charge. Obviously, as it is a close member of his family he does not want to pass this information on, but, he also does not want to pay the fine. Should it not be up to the PPC to find out who the registered owner is?

 

He is also worried that the fine will be passed to a debt collection agency.

 

Also, he is aware that no parking fine was placed on the vehicle when in the car park. Is this not going against the DVLA's Code of Practice, as it mentions in the letter that the charge is issued legally and correctly in accordance with this.

 

I would be grateful for any advice you could give to me, and any guidance in which way to take this forward.

 

Thanks

[Rob S]

He is under no obligation to disclose to the PPC who was driving. And if they pass it to a debt collection agency there is little they can do to enforce it.

 

Read the stickies at the top of the page to get more insight into these types of "invoices".

[crem]

Ok, although I am no expert at these things (many on this site are and will be able to punch far more holes in it than me) IMV they have breached many guidelines already on their paperwork and may also be becoming fraudulent. Further letters from them will no doubt only dig the hole deeper so jsut let them.

 

A couple of points already that I can see:-

 

"In accordance with the contract in the car park you as RK are responsible for paying...." this is rubbish as no 3rd party person (i.e. the driver) can agree to a contract on your behalf. their contract is with the driver and only the driver.

 

Their 2nd letter implies they simply have to "register the claim with the court" and before you know it you will have the bailiffs on you!!" errmm correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you allowed to defend yourself against the claim and only if they win will judgement go against you? Even then, if you pay the court award bailiffs will not be involved and the debt is never registered as a CCJ

 

Their 3rd letter refers to them working within DVLA guidelines etc. They forgot to point out they had already broken them! DVLA/BPA guidelines state their first letter to the RK should only ask for driver information and not imply the RK is liable. Also they make it sound like you are obliged to provide driver details when you are not. Further, if the DVLA details were wrong at the time of the parking then that is their problem not yours.

 

Is that enough for you for now to ignore their claims? if not I am sure some of our clever members here could add many more to my list.

[lamma]

FAQs - PPCs - fighting back. The forces are aligned and http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/164651-problems-ppcs-face.html?highlight=problems+ppc+face

[llanboy83]

he's worried about the charge being passed to a debt collection agency, doesn't really want bailiffs knocking at the door.

 

was thinking about writing to them saying that if they want to find out who the rk is they should contact the dvla. what do you think of that?

 

i know the person who is the rk would not be worried about having these threats and would ignore all the letters they send.

 

any advice?

[lamma]

"I was not the driver, keeper, owner or the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date concerned". no more. no less.

[llanboy83]

sounds good to me. think i'll tell him to send that tomorrow, prob get another letter back off them then tho

[pin1onu]

he's worried about the charge being passed to a debt collection agency, doesn't really want bailiffs knocking at the door.

You need to be clear on one thing. A debt collection agency is not the same thing as a bailiff.

 

A bailiff is appointed by the court to collect payment of unpaid fines/judgements etc. He works after a hearing and has certain powers awarded by the court.

 

Debt collectors attempt to collect before it's been to court. They have no more power to collect a debt than you or I. If they come calling you don't have to speak to them or let them in. They will generally write letters or use phone calls to intimidate you into paying.

 

was thinking about writing to them saying that if they want to find out who the rk is they should contact the dvla. what do you think of that?

 

i know the person who is the rk would not be worried about having these threats and would ignore all the letters they send.

 

any advice?

Any contract is with the driver on the day. A third party cannot be made privy to a contract. So the RK can tell them to Foxtrot Oscar.

 

They have breached the Consumer Protection Regs 2008 by implying that the RK is responsible for a contract incurred by the driver.

[llanboy83]

Thanks for the info. Seems to get more complicated the more you look into it, looks although they don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Do you think its worth mentioning all the regs they have broken in a letter or not?

[lamma]

"I was not the driver, keeper, owner or the registered keeper of the vehicle on the date concerned". no more. no less.

[crem]

llanboy, as lamma has said, give them as little info as possible. Many in these forums would advocate not contacting them at all from now on which certainly is the best way of giving them NO INFO WHATSOEVER.

[llanboy83]

Sent a letter just stating what lamma said above, and he's received a letter from them saying that court action is imminent.

 

what do you think is the best way forward, do you think they will actually take it to court?

[lamma]

in the face of your assertion they be really stupid to do so. he can prove it through documents and the PPC will know this as these threads get viewed a lot by the PPCs. there is NO obligation to give them any other information despite what they claim - but they make all kinds of outrageous claims don't they. just the single sentence as above.

[pin1onu]

I suspect they will have a job proving privity of contract. Any reasonable judge would throw the case out on that single item alone.