Advice re Pofa

A question about : Advice re Pofa

Advice for a newbie please - I have read the stickies!!

A friend received a windscreen notice in October 2014 which was duly ignored.
A notice to keeper was then sent to their address dated and postmarked 61 days later.
Having read the advice I understand that this is outside the 57 day time limit for Pofa to apply (I presume Bank holidays don't affect the calculation)??
I know an initial letter of appeal still needs to be sent to the company but does this need highlighting and what exactly does it alter?

Thanks

Best answers:

• It means the PPC can't rely on POFA to enforce keeper liability, which means there IS no keeper liability.
  This just gets added as an appeal point:
  x) The notice to keeper was issued XX days after the stated date of the parking incident. The Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 states that a notice to keeper (NtK) should be received by the keeper between 29 and 56 days after a notice to driver (NtD, or windscreen notice) has been issued.
  As this NtK relates to an NtD having been issued, and it has been issued outwith the period mandated by POFA 2012, then there is no keeper liability and this PCN must be redirected back to the driver. (The keeper is under no obligation to identify the driver and shall not be doing so. Indeed several people are entitled to drive the noted vehicle and the keeper has no recollection of who was driving that day).
  [Remove that last sentence it it is not true]
• It essentially means that they can no longer rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (as they have failed to meet the criteria for adhering to this), and can no longer pursue the Registered Keeper in relation to any charges.
  They MUST pursue the driver only. You are under no legal obligation to tell them who that is, so make sure you don't!
• This just gets added as an appeal point:
  But is it an appeal? If they are out of time to pursue the PK why should you appeal? Just tell them to pursue the matter with the driver
• Thanks for the quick replies.
  I do understand where you are coming from about appealing when they have failed to comply but I suppose if they accept "the appeal" then at least it is dead and buried rather than potentially dragging on.
  Still on the same ticket if you don't mind - what figure is considered a Gepol in a free car cark?
• At most about Ј10 ... to cover accessing keeper data from DVLA and related admin costs to process the NtK. But even that is dubious ... the car park was free so there can't really be any losses flowing from no initial loss.
• Moving on a month - can you believe this!!
  An appeal was sent to the company raising all the standard points gpeol, signage, contract etc but was started with the fact that that their notice to keeper was issued outside the time limits of POFA and that there is now no keeper liability.
  The company have refused the "appeal" but at the beginning of their reply have headed it with the reference number and a date which is 5 days after the parking offence (which if correct would coincidentally make their ntk letter sent after 56 days) and funnily enough they made no reference to their failure in the reply.
  Does their failure to comply with POFA give a slam dunk win at Popla or will we still have to rely on all the other points?
• Thanks Fruitcake,
  Yes, the event date can be proved, they have quoted the correct date in the original ntk, however when it was pointed out in the appeal they were out of date for POFA the date seems to have changed conveniently.
  I understand we will have to include all the relevant points for POPLA including GPEOL but I desparately want to win if only because they have been underhand when issuing the ticket and continue still.
  Can anybody actually confirm or not whether failing to comply with POFA timelimits when they are quoting POFA in their NTK will be an automatic win at POPLA?
• No it won't - it should be but it won't.
• Further to my question regarding the non-compliance of POFA as an automatic win, I am currently preparing and researching for the POPLA appeal and came across this POPLA judgement (#1380 on POPLA decisions and thanks to KOP1TE) -
  The results of my appeal against Minster Baywatch:-
  Reasons for the Assessor's Determination
  The appellant has at no point admitted being the driver, there is no evidence that he was, and he has not named the driver and provided a serviceable address. Therefore, the appellant's only liability is as the keeper, which means that the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 must be complied with. I find that the operator has failed show that they have produced a 'notice to keeper' which complies with the requirements of paragraph 8 of Schedule 4.
  The operator must produce evidence that such a notice has been produced regardless of whether the issue is raised by the appellant, as the liability is not based in the law of contract but is created by the statute. Specifically, the 'notice to owner' is not shown to comply with sub-paragraph 2(g) by informing the keeper of the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints. This is because neither mention, as specified by sub-paragraph 8(b), any arrangements by which disputes or complaints may be referred by the keeper to independent adjudication or arbitration. Therefore, as no compliant notice to keeper has been shown to exist, and the appellant does not admit to being the driver, the charge notice has not been shown to be enforceable against the appellant.
  Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
  Christopher Monk
  Assessor
  I haven't noticed any other POPLA wins on this matter - surely there are no end of breaches by the operators which should produce this result so how come we don't seem to see them?