UKPC ltd/DCB(L) 2015 ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Valley Retail Park, Hesterman Way, Croydon ***Claim Discontinued***

[lookinforinfo]

What happened to the PCN form Aug 2015?

It is such a pity that that date was not the one they were chasing.

The reason being that one month later the DVLA removed them from getting motorists data because they had been

falsifying photographic evidence. 

 

There is no reason not to mention it at the appropriate time ie if they take you to Court . I am sure they would not want judges reminded of their previous history and of course how does anyone know the falsifications were still not being carried out in the following year. 

 

Leopards do not change their spots. And they have had their KADOE membership removed a second time so we will see if they set themselves up as paragons of virtue if the time comes.

 

I hope you will then change your name here to Eve owes nothing.

Edited September 23, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

It is not for you to find out who was driving. They have to prove who was driving. They cannot assume it was the keeper. I am surprised that they only sent photographs. They should have included things like the PCNs and any letters they have already sent to you since the incident. If they haven't got it how can they have done their due diligence? Silly me, it's DCBL.  So if they have sent more than just photos, please post them here. 

 

If the photos reveal any of their signs please show us.

 

They may not take you court so why pay them now especially as the £160 will no doubt be reduced to £100 should it get to court and even if you lose, the Court will allow monthly repayments. You may well win in court so why pay now but we are still some months away from a court case if there is one. which should giveyou time to have a bit put by then to help pay if you do not win.

 

We  won't know how strong your case is until we see their WS and from that we will see the PCNs they issued, their T&Cs in the car park as well as the actual contract between them and the land owner. It would seem better to wait until you know what you are looking at before paying them a penny.

[lookinforinfo]

Send the SAR to UKPC. There is no point sending it to DCBL unless you do it in different coloured crayons and don't use any words with more than four letters in them. A single amoeba has more brain cells than all  of them at DCBL.

[lookinforinfo]

Eve, have you received the CPR from them or their Witness statement ? If you have can you please post them up as then we will be able to see the original PCN as well as many other things that will knock their case on the head.

[lookinforinfo]

Well done you for reading Schedule 4. Yes there are a lot of words which aren't easy to make sense of without reading it several times. 

You are right that they crooks do not have to say which PCN is their Notice to Keeper and after a quick look through your thread I cannot see that you have posted it for us to see.  You said that your daughter got a ticket for parking in a disabled spot but I don't know if the ticket was put on her windscreen or sent by post.

 

If it was a windscreen PCN then the ticket she should have received between 28 and 56 days later is the Notice to Keeper whether it states it or not. If it wasn't a windscreen ticket then the first ticket she received is the NTK and should have been received within 14 days  

of parking in the disabled spot. I don't suppose your daughter has kept a copy of that PCN? Please post it up as there are details on there, that if wrong, can help your daughter's case.

 

If she hasn't kept the PCN it will either arrive with the CPR or sar or the Witness Statement so don't worry, but the sooner we see it the better.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Eve thanks for including the Notice to Keeper. It is non compliant so the alleged debt cannot be transferred to the keeper. Only the driver is liable and if the driver has  not been revealed, UKPC will have a hard job proving who was driving.

 

Incidentally, on the headline to your thread, the PCN was supposed to have happened in 2015 not 2016. Are there two tickets or just over optimistic when the PCN was issued.

[lookinforinfo]

FTM it is the wording on the NTK that no where nears matches what it should say if it is to be compliant.

First of all the NTK does not  say that UKPC is the Creditor. It should.

Second  "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;" is also missing.

There is a possible third which I can't tell because the Argos card covered the dates so I cannot tell whether there was a period of parking or not.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Eve you are right they have got the word  Creditor on the NTK. 

You covered up certain times on both PCNs so would appreciate if you could please confirm.

On the NTD could you please give the Issue time  and the Time first seen.

On the NTK could you please say what the Period of Parking is and whether there is just one time mentioned or two. If two is it the same times as on the NTD?

I suspect that the times on the NTD photos will coincide with the times on the photos. If so that is not the period of parking asked for on PoFA.

Indeed if their times are only a few minutes then they should not have issued with  a ticket as motorists have a ten minute grace period.

 

Both the NTD are not complaint by dint of the periods of parking being wrong regardless of the Creditor.being mentioned or not.

This means that the keeper is not responsible for the debt. So do not reveal who was driving .

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Could I suggest a slight change to Dave's excellent WS at 8.2

 

8.2The new Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 is crystal clear-

 

 S9  "

Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued"

 

[AS BOTH THE PARKING COMPANY AND THE LEGAL SECTION BOTH KNOW THE CONTENTS OF THE NEW ACT, TO CONTINUE TO ATTEMPT SUCH AN OVERCHARGE  IS  SURELY OVER THE RED LINE BETWEEN LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL . IS  IT TIME NOW THAT THIS ABUSE HAS BEEN DEFIITIVELY OUTLAWED BY THE NEW ACT THAT UKPC ARE FINANCIALLY PUNISHED TO PREVENT FURTHER OCCURRENCES.]

[lookinforinfo]

 

Yes include my bit in black as well as the red.

Eve, it matters not that it was a disabled bay-the PCN has to comply with the Act or the keeper cannot be held responsible. One of the requirements for the PCN is that they include the period of parking. This is always necessary when there are time constrictions in the car park plus most car parks have a ten minute grace period .

So just putting in one time is insufficient. In your case on the NTD if they use the parking period to coincide with the timings on the photos, you could argue that if that is their parking period then the car left within two minutes after realising that it was parked in a wrong spot so no offence committed. 

Both the NTD and the NTK have to comply with the regulations laid down on PoFA 2012.One of those regs. is the parking period. On both PCNs the times are wrong because the car was parked there for much longer than the time stated on the PCNs. Therefore both PCNs are non compliant and the keeper cannot be liable to pay the debt regardless of whether it was a disabled spot or not. The keeper is not responsible for the alleged debt.-only the driver is. 

It doesn't matter if they have sent out the PCNs at the right time and every other requirement has been met, if the time period is wrong, the PCN is non compliant. End of. As your daughter was not driving she is in the clear. s they do not know who was driving the case collapses. All your daughter has to do now is to ask for her costs -time off work, travel, parking time working on her case at £19 per hour  then down the pub. to celebrate.

 

[lookinforinfo]

It is for them to state the period of parking not anyone else. But if they don't quote a period of parking then you can suggest that what if the car was only there for five minutes the grace period could come into play and no offence would have occurred at all.. So you could put then to strict proof that the car didn't stay longer than five minutes which they would be unable to do.

 

It doesn't matter who was driving as long as it was not the keeper. Even if the driver was the keeper they are still not liable as the keeper because of the flawed PCN.

Then they still have to prove who was driving and in Court they cannot assume the driver is the keeper. Many people even apart from close family are able to drive that car. Anyone with their own motor insurance can usually legally drive that car. Strict proof is necessary for them to prove who was driving.

 

As far as who was driving is concerned that is not really your concern. It is up to them to prove. It is quite all right to say that after 6 years the person driving has been forgotten. However the keeper is certain that they would have known of the disabled places and not parked there and so highly unlikely that the keeper was the driver. It would be useful if a number of other people did drive the car on occasion which could be advised to the Judge especially is there was more than one named driver.

[lookinforinfo]

1 hour ago, Andyorch said:

 

Well done Eve. That must be a great relief for you and your daughter.

Edited June 20, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

Well next time you will know what to do and you won't stress at all.