University of Leeds (Hospital) ANPR PCN -

[lookinforinfo]

I agree that it is worth an appeal as the PCN is non compliant into the bargain.

Under Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] -

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;

There is no mention of the keeper paying to Charge. Therefore the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Under Schedule 4 S9[2] [a] 

(2)The notice must—

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

There is no mention of the period of parking on the PCN . The timing on the photos is not the same as including it on the PCN.

Also the timing mentioned on the PCN is the time spent between the arrival and departure  of the car which involves driving to the parking spot and later from the parking spot to the exit. This therefore cannot be called a parking period.   

Another fail which reinforces that the keeper is not responsible.and there is no obligation to name the driver.

 

[lookinforinfo]

You could go back and explain that the as PCN is not compliant with PoFA 2012 the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable for the debt.

The PCN does not ask that the keeper should pay   the charge as it should under  Schedule 4 S9 [2][e] - . As it doesn't the PCN is not compliant so the keeper is not liable.

Therefore it would be advisable to cancel the PCN since there is no chance of you winning in Court. As you now know the keeper is not liable to issue a court summons would be in breach of his GDPR.

[lookinforinfo]

That should work but never underestimate the power of greed of  parking companies .

[lookinforinfo]

No please include the Schedule 4  bits since those are the ones that exonerate the keeper regardless of who owns what part of the road. 

[lookinforinfo]

Nicky Boy if the car was parked on a public road and PoFA didn't apply, then  PoFA  should not have been quoted on their PCN.  

[lookinforinfo]

I am in agreement with Dave on this. They didn't have to reduce to £20 if they didn't know that the keeper wasn't the driver.

[lookinforinfo]

The elephant in the room which they did not mention was the keeper was not the driver and the PCN is non compliant.

I would write back to them stating that this letter is not an appeal. The  University of Leeds has been informed that the keeper could not be the driver and the PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012.  Ergo the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. While  that point was ignored on the appeal,  should they decide to take the matter further and instruct the Court for instance, that will be taken as a breach of keeper GDPR and as that can involve compensation which could be  as much as £2000 where certain types of disability are concerned, is it worth the risk?

 

[lookinforinfo]

I don't think you need to send them kisses Dave.