PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

VCS, office car park, no valid permit
gac
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



The driver has a parking "document" (which states it is not a PCN) from VCS which was left on their windscreen after the car was parked in the car park of a currently unoccupied office building on a business park. The "offence" is "Not displaying a valid permit" but there are currently no occupants to get a permit from, and no property owners contact details, only the letting agents.

Anything the driver/keeper can do here to appeal? It's the standard £60 within 14 days, £100 otherwise. There is no NtK yet there was just a red square piece of paper left on the car with a reference number on the back to look at the offence online, and then the rest follows in the post in a day or so. When it arrives, I'll redact and upload if required.

Thanks for any pointers.

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
gac
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:33
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



I need to get this done, been busy with work and hadn't realised time was ticking away so quickly. So I'm planning to raise a simple appeal with something like

"I am appealing as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. Having read the signs at the location, they are not sufficient to form a contract with a driver not holding a permit, therefore there are no terms to be in breach of, and no contravention."

I learned from posts on here that there's no real benefit in making the appeal any longer than necessary so given that they almost definitely won't allow the appeal anyway, I don't need to waste any words unless anyone has any better suggestions or (preferably) previous cases using the same defence that could be cited.

edit - or is is best to just not appeal and wait to see what happens?

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 21:57
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



The keeper may as well appeal rather than ignore it, but I wouldn't talk about signage and prefer to call it a dispute, since you know an appeal is just pointless to any IPC firm.

I'd be saying something like:

I am disputing the notice to Keeper (NTK) you posted to me, as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. I cannot be held liable in law for your baseless charge, because:

(1) There was no relevant obligation or relevant contract formed with the driver, and

(2) VCS has failed to comply with either paragraph 8 or paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. The driver found a non-compliant piece of paper emblazoned 'Not a Parking Charge Notice' applied to the vehicle, and the NTK that followed misstates the 28 day period applicable in the Act. Two documents, when taken together, are incapable of holding a registered keeper liable.

Kindly don't insult me with such pointless old chestnuts as Elliot v Loake or Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films, or the one about the footballer.

Compliments of the Season,

gac
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:12
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,769
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



What's the one about the footballer ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 22:27
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Alder v Moore, their other fave:

https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_no...der-v-dot-moore

I would word the dispute sarcastically, but maybe that's just me...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 10:30
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Thanks SchoolRunMum, that sounds much better, and I'll make sure to mention (sarcastically or not) the cases you mentioned.

Out of interest, and because I want to make sure I understand, what did they misstate about the 28 day period? My understanding is that Paragraph 8 of POFA doesn't apply because the document the driver found isn't a compliant "notice to driver". That would mean that the Notice to Keeper that was received was done so under paragaph 6(1)(b) which applies where there is no notice to driver at all and only Paragraph 9 applies. Is the "mis-statement" that POFA mentions that all applicable conditions must be met, but VCS just state that they have the right to pursue the keeper unequivocally to make the keeper think it's a foregone conclusion?

Another idle thought; I wonder if anyone has ever had any "criminal" damage caused to their car by a parking company affixing a non-compliant "not-notice" which they don't have the right to do under POFA because it's not a notice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:01
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (gac @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 11:30) *
Thanks SchoolRunMum, that sounds much better, and I'll make sure to mention (sarcastically or not) the cases you mentioned.

Out of interest, and because I want to make sure I understand, what did they misstate about the 28 day period? My understanding is that Paragraph 8 of POFA doesn't apply because the document the driver found isn't a compliant "notice to driver". That would mean that the Notice to Keeper that was received was done so under paragaph 6(1)(b) which applies where there is no notice to driver at all and only Paragraph 9 applies. Is the "mis-statement" that POFA mentions that all applicable conditions must be met, but VCS just state that they have the right to pursue the keeper unequivocally to make the keeper think it's a foregone conclusion?

Another idle thought; I wonder if anyone has ever had any "criminal" damage caused to their car by a parking company affixing a non-compliant "not-notice" which they don't have the right to do under POFA because it's not a notice?


Why is it not a "notice to driver"?

If you put a sign on your car saying "This is not a car!" would that make it not a car? Could you then claim no car was parked as claimed?

The document they stuck to the car was a notice telling the driver about a parking charge, therefore it was a notice to the driver, no matter what the PPC claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:07
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,091
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



S not a Notice to driver as it doesn’t meet the requirements to be an NtD as specified in PoFA, this then allows them to reap lots of ill informed appeals at no cost and then send a PoFA compliant NtK within 14 days anyway.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:19
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:07) *
S not a Notice to driver as it doesn’t meet the requirements to be an NtD as specified in PoFA, this then allows them to reap lots of ill informed appeals at no cost and then send a PoFA compliant NtK within 14 days anyway.


So it's a non-compliant NtD?

Surely a notice telling the driver about a parking charge is a NtD, whether it complies with any other requirements surely cannot change that?

Not trying to argue, genuinely want to understand, as it seems a bit of a weak get out.

I know it's silly, but by the same logic, you could constantly send the PPC letters saying this is not a refusal to pay your charge, and then when it goes to court, claim there is no dispute because you never refused to pay. Clearly, that would be nonsense, but how can writing this is not a parking charge be any less nonsense?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:21
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (GooseOnTheLoose @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:01) *
Why is it not a "notice to driver"?

It's a "notice to driver" (insomuch as it's a notice stuck on a car) but it is not a "Notice to Driver" (defined by PoFA). PoFA does permit an NtK to be sent without first sending an NtD, it just slightly changes the conditions that the NtK has to meet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:27
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (gac @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:21) *
QUOTE (GooseOnTheLoose @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:01) *
Why is it not a "notice to driver"?

It's a "notice to driver" (insomuch as it's a notice stuck on a car) but it is not a "Notice to Driver" (defined by PoFA). PoFA does permit an NtK to be sent without first sending an NtD, it just slightly changes the conditions that the NtK has to meet.


So to me that might be how the PPC want you to look at it, but surely you can also take the view that it's a NtD that is not compliant with PoFA and therefore no PoFA compliance, so PoFA cannot be used to make the keeper liable?

I hope someone more knowledgeable can clarify why what I am suggesting would not be the case, if it isn't the case?
Has it ever been tested in court?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:50
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (GooseOnTheLoose @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:27) *
QUOTE (gac @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:21) *
QUOTE (GooseOnTheLoose @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:01) *
Why is it not a "notice to driver"?

It's a "notice to driver" (insomuch as it's a notice stuck on a car) but it is not a "Notice to Driver" (defined by PoFA). PoFA does permit an NtK to be sent without first sending an NtD, it just slightly changes the conditions that the NtK has to meet.


So to me that might be how the PPC want you to look at it, but surely you can also take the view that it's a NtD that is not compliant with PoFA and therefore no PoFA compliance, so PoFA cannot be used to make the keeper liable?

I hope someone more knowledgeable can clarify why what I am suggesting would not be the case, if it isn't the case?
Has it ever been tested in court?

I think you would be right if PoFA *required* an NtD to be issued. Their document doesn't meet the requirements for one, and they say it isn't one, so if one was required they would not be PoFA-compliant.

But PoFA doesn't have a hard requirement that one must be issued, just that *if* one is issued then it must be compliant. In essence, it's almost the same twist of language that applies to parking signage ("if you have a permit then it must be valid"), but they also correctly cater for the other option where you don't meet that condition and have different terms.

So in this case, VCS have issued a notice to the driver to try and get an easy win (as The Rookie said) since the driver may see it and simply use the details (which funnily enough are not sufficient to describe the "contravention" but are sufficient for someone to pay it) and pay the charge, but been clear to make sure it's not a Notice to Driver as they are not required to issue one.

This post has been edited by gac: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GooseOnTheLoose
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:04
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 9 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,418



QUOTE (gac @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:50) *
I think you would be right if PoFA *required* an NtD to be issued. Their document doesn't meet the requirements for one, and they say it isn't one, so if one was required they would not be PoFA-compliant.

But PoFA doesn't have a hard requirement that one must be issued, just that *if* one is issued then it must be compliant. In essence, it's almost the same twist of language that applies to parking signage ("if you have a permit then it must be valid"), but they also correctly cater for the other option where you don't meet that condition and have different terms.

So in this case, VCS have issued a notice to the driver to try and get an easy win (as The Rookie said) since the driver may see it and simply use the details (which funnily enough are not sufficient to describe the "contravention" but are sufficient for someone to pay it) and pay the charge, but been clear to make sure it's not a Notice to Driver as they are not required to issue one.


To me it's not about PoFA requiring a NtD, it is the fact they have issued (a non-complaint) one, but are claiming they have not to avoid getting dinged for the non-compliance of their notice. They are basically having their cake and eating it, as they get the potential of the driver paying up and still get the benefit of issuing a NtK as if no NtD was issued.

Unfortunately fascinating as this is, none of it helps you right now, so apologies for the derailment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:12
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (GooseOnTheLoose @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:04) *
To me it's not about PoFA requiring a NtD, it is the fact they have issued (a non-complaint) one, but are claiming they have not to avoid getting dinged for the non-compliance of their notice. They are basically having their cake and eating it, as they get the potential of the driver paying up and still get the benefit of issuing a NtK as if no NtD was issued.
Except they haven't issued a non-compliant one, because it isn't one, and they tell you it isn't one. Therefore they're stating their position purely on issuing an NtK compliant with paragraph 9, rather than an NtD (para 7) followed by an NtK (para 8).

And if the driver paid, they cannot then pursue the keeper as well. Even though the NtK is posted out and may take a day or two to arrive (so the keeper may receive their paperwork the day after the driver has paid) in my experience, parking companies take payment instantly online or via phone, and (greedy and corrupt though they are) if both the driver and the keeper paid the same fine that parking company would likely be in for some harsh punishments via the courts. Maybe some leeway if they accept payment via cheque or some other form of payment that needs to clear, but there's really no excuse if they were to "double dip" the same charge. And while parking companies may have occasionally won court cases that justify their behaviour, I don't think charging two people for the same contravention would ever be defensible regardless of how they spun it. The "notice" has enough details for the PPC to be able to allocate a payment to that specific charge, after all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:38
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Not sure why you are still going round in circles about this non-compliant NTD asking questions already covered.

This is nothing new, and in post 22 I already said the 'Not a CN' plus the NTK are not compatible with keeper liability as they fail to meet either para 8 or para 9 of Sch4.

The NTK is not compliant even as a stand alone document, and again this has been done to death on other VCS threads. The 28 day period is misstated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 22:36
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:38) *
Not sure why you are still going round in circles about this non-compliant NTD asking questions already covered.

We're just talking about why not having an NtD isn't a problem. It's just a discussion related to the main issue, nothing to do with the thread and won't be used as part of a dispute.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:38) *
This is nothing new, and in post 22 I already said the 'Not a CN' plus the NTK are not compatible with keeper liability as they fail to meet either para 8 or para 9 of Sch4.

The NTK is not compliant even as a stand alone document, and again this has been done to death on other VCS threads. The 28 day period is misstated.

I still don't see what/how it's misstated besides what I said above. The rest of the language they use seems compliant to me. As a sole NtK (with no preceding NtD) it only has to comply with Paragraph 9, and the only reference to a 28 day period in Paragraph 9 that I see is

QUOTE
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,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;

which the NtK agrees with (apart from mentioning the applicable conditions)? Maybe you could confirm in more detail (or post a link explaining it if it's been covered in other threads) exactly what has been misstated here, as I'm simply not seeing it myself? I've Googled stuff like "VCS NtK 28 days" and found threads on here but they all seem to be old ones from when VCS were actually issuing NtDs and then screwing up the timeframes and chasing the keeper too early. Since there was no NtD here, and the NtK was issued within 14 days of the alleged contravention, that is compliant as far as I understand it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 12:37
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



A "notice to driver", according to POFA, is "a notice given in accordance with paragraph 7". Paragraph 7 contains a number of "musts", inlcuding specifying the vehicle, the relevant land, the period of parking, containing information about various things, identifying the creditor, etc. Nothing the PPC can say or do changes the fact that, for purposes of POFA, a compliant notice is an NtD, and a non-compliant notice is not an NtD. (E.g., stating "this is not a Notice to Driver" is irrelevant.)

POFA is not about the legality of private parking charges, per se; in relevant part it is solely concerned with the circumstances in which the law allows the shifting of liability for a PCN from a driver to a keeper.

The second POFA condition is that the PPC has correctly followed either paragraphs 7 and 8, or paragraph 9. Given the way POFA is written, if the PPC has complied with paragraph 9, any attempted compliance with paragraphs 7 or 8 would be irrelevant (and vice versa). You may think this gives the PPC an extra "bite" at the cherry (it doesn't really), but compliance with either leg of the POFA test was always something mainly in the hands of the PPC--and completely non-compulsory.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:28
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,672
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (gac @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 22:36) *
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:38) *
This is nothing new, and in post 22 I already said the 'Not a CN' plus the NTK are not compatible with keeper liability as they fail to meet either para 8 or para 9 of Sch4.

The NTK is not compliant even as a stand alone document, and again this has been done to death on other VCS threads. The 28 day period is misstated.

I still don't see what/how it's misstated besides what I said above. The rest of the language they use seems compliant to me. As a sole NtK (with no preceding NtD) it only has to comply with Paragraph 9, and the only reference to a 28 day period in Paragraph 9 that I see is

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—



VCS say 'beginning with the day after the ISSUE DATE of this Notice'.

Ahem, not the same, and can be quite a few days out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 18:41
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,280
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



To expand on that POFA says:

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.

POFA also says:

specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

So they haven't said when the notice was sent, only when they issued the charge

So as they haven't given the information they are required to give it is impossible to work out what date they actually mean. I don't believe "Issue Date" is actually defined witin POFA (well, I couldn't find it).

This post has been edited by ostell: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 18:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 08:04
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



I see. Yeah, that's quite subtle and I missed it, so thank you both for clarifying. I just didn't want to put anything in the dispute (which I'll be doing today) that I didn't feel like I understood enough to defend my position if I have to.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 11:06
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Got the response to the dispute - not surprisingly "we believe the CN was correctly issued". Anything else to do here, or just keep quiet? The IAS is a complete waste of time, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 18th August 2019 - 06:01
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.