NCP parking charge received 3+ months later

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yet another private parking charge question. Received this letter today, 01 May, for an alleged 11 minute 'max stay exceeded' in a taxi zone at a station back in January more than 3 months ago. Images are pretty grainy and the online ones are no clearer as to the exact location of this, so I'll check it out on foot because I'm surprised I stayed into any tax zones there.

I did try to search the forums and some other online sites but couldn't find a definitive answer as to whether I should be appealing this on these grounds or not.

Issued on 18 April according to the letter as well I notice, which doesn't give me much thinking time to pay up the reduced amount of £60 within 14 days if I wanted to! Envelope isn't date stamped, of course.

Any useful information would be grateful!

[Rufus Stone]

I would be inclined to write back and tell them to bog off as they are well outside the legislative window under which the registered keeper can be held liable.

The only thing to watch is that Station land can have special terms applying to them.

[megaphone]

You don't state if you did park and overstay on that date, did you?

[ScoobyChris]

IANAL but I think POFA 2012 covers this: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedu...

(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.
(6)A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

So if the parking period ended in January, serving on April 18th is well outside 14 days?

Chris

ps Don't identify the driver

[Koyaanisqatsi]

megaphone said:

You don't state if you did park and overstay on that date, did you?

I can't even think where around the station the taxi zone is, but if it was just 10-11 minutes then I would have more than likely been picking someone up from the station.

[vikingaero]

Appeal on the NCP website:

(1) "The Parking Charge Notice is not POFA 2012 compliant and was issued and received after 14 days" (They might reply and try and bullst you and say they are not claiming under POFA)

(2) "I am the RK of vehicle A123ABC, but I was not the driver and am not required to name the driver"

(3) Please send a POPLA Appeal Code if you disgree.

[megaphone]

Koyaanisqatsi said:

megaphone said:

You don't state if you did park and overstay on that date, did you?

I can't even think where around the station the taxi zone is, but if it was just 10-11 minutes then I would have more than likely been picking someone up from the station.

So you can't remember if you went to the station? Is it your car in the picture? It's difficult to appeal if you can't give any evidence.

That said, as others have posted, the notice has been issued way past the date of the contravention, so I would go down that route. Ditto, do not identify the diver.

[Debaser]

What would happen if you ignored the letter?

[vikingaero]

Debaser said:

What would happen if you ignored the letter?

"You're credit rating will be trashed and bailiffs will take your children" [sic]

Probably a few nasty letters from their pet Debt Collection Agency. NCP aren't very litigious compared to some parking companies. If it does go to Court it will be harder to use the "I'm not required to name the driver" when under oath.

[caziques]

vikingaero said:

If it does go to Court it will be harder to use the "I'm not required to name the driver" when under oath.

It would be a very rare instance where a defendant took the witness stand in court.

[vikingaero]

caziques said:

vikingaero said:

If it does go to Court it will be harder to use the "I'm not required to name the driver" when under oath.

It would be a very rare instance where a defendant took the witness stand in court.

What I mean is that you may be asked by the Judge who the driver was if you were using the not naming the driver defence.

[jeremyc]

Who is the Registered Keeper of the vehicle?

If not you it may have been delivered in time to the RK before being redirected to you.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Do the emblems on the footer of the letter indicate whether they comply with the Popla stuff?

Yes, I am the keeper and the main driver of the pictured vehicle.

I'll appeal, but just want to make sure I'm using the correct information.

[ScoobyChris]

Koyaanisqatsi said:

Do the emblems on the footer of the letter indicate whether they comply with the Popla stuff?

Yes, I am the keeper and the main driver of the pictured vehicle.

I'll appeal, but just want to make sure I'm using the correct information.

The BPA logo would suggest they do: (search for POFA and you'll find the relevant sections)

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/A...

Chris

[pavarotti1980]

Worth bearing in mind that Railway Byelaws may be in operation as well so a PCN from NCP may not allow them to chase the registered keeper. Worth looking on pepipoo or MSE forums to see if there are recent examples which may be of use to you.

[Gareth79]

vikingaero said:

caziques said:

vikingaero said:

If it does go to Court it will be harder to use the "I'm not required to name the driver" when under oath.

It would be a very rare instance where a defendant took the witness stand in court.

What I mean is that you may be asked by the Judge who the driver was if you were using the not naming the driver defence.

Would the judge ask that? I don't think it's their job to question defendants.

[Red Devil]

As the OP is the RK, NCP are screwed either way.

If they attempt to use PoFA 2012 Keeper liability, the NTK is clearly non-compliant with Schedule 4 Section 9(5).
See -.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
It's well out of time and no other rebuttal should be introduced at this stage in any response. That alone should see it binned.
KISS. Reply as the RK and say nothing at all about who was driving.

Another bar to PoFA 2012 RK liability is if parking is covered by Railway Byelaws [per Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000].
See 14(3) here - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7...
That will mean it is not 'relevant land'. See Schedule 4 Section 3(1)(c).

AFAIK, NCP has no authority to enforce Railway Byelaws. That is reserved to the station Operator which, for Chelmsford, will be Greater Anglia.
If GA wished to take action it would be by prosecution in a Magistrates Court and the required signage may well be deficient.

The shambolic situation at Chelmsford is discussed here - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/parking-charg...
(n.b. don't go looking for PepiPoo: the site url returns an error and appears to be moribund. Worse, the relevant pages have not been archived to the Wayback Machine).

[Boom78]

For me I’d just pay the £60 as the stress involved with challenging and potential visits by collectors just isn’t worth it. Chalk it off as an experience to park safer next time. Not to mention it will jump to £100 and then probably tripped for fees/admin. How many hours has this been revolving around in your head already? This isn’t a ‘sock it to the man’ scenario, get it paid, sleep happy.

Edited by Boom78 on Friday 3rd May 07:34

Edited by Boom78 on Friday 3rd May 07:35

[John145]

Boom78 said:

For me I’d just pay the £60 as the stress involved with challenging and potential visits by collectors just isn’t worth it. Chalk it off as an experience to park safer next time. Not to mention it will jump to £100 and then probably tripped for fees/admin. How many hours has this been revolving around in your head already? This isn’t a ‘sock it to the man’ scenario, get it paid, sleep happy.

Edited by Boom78 on Friday 3rd May 07:34

Edited by Boom78 on Friday 3rd May 07:35

Interestingly my opinion is fight it because it'll be something more interesting than the monotony of paying bills and doing the day job lol.

[WrekinCrew]

Red Devil said:

...
(n.b. don't go looking for PepiPoo: the site url returns an error and appears to be moribund. Worse, the relevant pages have not been archived to the Wayback Machine).

They've moved to http://ftla.uk. Same format and same people.