Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 14th Feb 17, 8:52 AM
    • 19Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Aligoose
    Airport charge notice help please
    • #1
    • 14th Feb 17, 8:52 AM
    Airport charge notice help please 14th Feb 17 at 8:52 AM
    Hi,

    I'm a newbie to the site and have read the newbie post and various other posts regarding airport penalty tickets but I'm still a bit confused about the best course of action so any help is appreciated.
    I've received a 'charge notice' from VCS for stopping in the bus stop at Humberside airport for less than a minute.
    The driver had already dropped off passengers in the correct designated car park and when leaving then pulled in momentarily due to needing to tend to their young daughter.
    The driver was not sure whether to go down the mitigating circumstances route as they did not stop for a 'premeditated' purpose, did not leave the vehicle, left within a minute and needed to stop in a safe place where they caused no obstruction/danger.

    At the time The driver was in a courtesy car. The driver was informed of the charge notice by the garage and have had a 'charge notice' (no mention of the word parking) sent to me from VCS following the garage providing my details . There is no mention of this being a 'notice to hirer' but would a notice to HIRER apply if it's a courtesy car? I have read the post regarding schedule 4 of PoFA and the requirements of sending the relevant documents has not been followed but I'm not sure if the driver is classed as a hirer, Also does it depend on whether the garage have provided the details as the driver or as the hirer?

    Any help is appreciated.
    Thanks
    Last edited by Aligoose; 14-02-2017 at 9:22 AM. Reason: Editing words used
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Feb 17, 9:38 PM
    • 45,809 Posts
    • 58,779 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    That's true - there was a posting from the Airport saying that.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 28th Feb 17, 11:13 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Please could someone take a look over my proposed appeal to IAS. I know that a lot of advice is that appealing to IAS is a waste of time but having been encouraged by Coupon Mad's post above I've drafted one to see if this is worth sending.
    ----------
    Dear Sir/Madam,

    Charge Notice [0123456789]: Vehicle Registration [AA11ABC] Site No (…) Date CN Issued (..)



    I have previously appealed to VCS and received what I can only describe as a standard proforma rejection letter which contained inaccurate information and which did not refer to the circumstances raised in my initial appeal. I am therefore adhering to their appeals procedure by appealing to the IAS.

    I refer to the above Charge Notice issued to me by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) on 31/01/2017 relating to an event on 09/01/17. I confirm that I was the temporary keeper of the vehicle on the relevant date, the vehicle being a courtesy car on hire from Hyundai. I am therefore its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.



    You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why VCS failed to comply with POFA.
    This is a hire vehicle and the position in relation to such vehicles is covered by paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA. The start point is that the Operator (VCS) should seek information from the hire company. Should the hire company wish to avoid liability for the unpaid parking charges they should provide the following:-

    (a) A statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

    (b) A copy of the hire agreement; and

    (c) A copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.



    Paragraph 14 goes on to explain the conditions to be met before the creditor, in this case the Operator (VCS), is able to claim unpaid charges from the hirer. The conditions are:-

    (a) The creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

    (b) A period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; and

    (c) The vehicle was not a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.



    I am not in receipt of any of the above required documentation.


    As such I am a keeper appellant yet VCS have no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced then a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. A failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.



    I would request that you uphold my appeal against this charge notice, however should you not agree with the representations made I understand that the decision of the IAS is not binding on me.
    ---------------------
    Is there anything else that I should include at this stage or keep it simple?Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 12:46 PM
    • 45,809 Posts
    • 58,779 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I think I would remove this staff about registered keepers and just make it simpler, and attach as evidence a copy of the NTK (both sides):

    As such I am a keeper appellant yet VCS have no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced then a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. A failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver.

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
    So I would go straight from:

    I am not in receipt of any of the above required documentation.
    to

    I would request that you uphold my appeal against this charge notice, however should you not agree with the representations made I understand that the decision of the IAS is not binding on me.
    I also have a niggle about telling the IAS it was a 'courtesy car' because they might say 'humpphhh, that's not a hire car then'.

    I would be more vague, just say as fact you were the hirer of this vehicle (don't even call yourself the 'keeper'), change it all to 'hirer' and that the car is owned by the company VCS initially contacted. If you have a copy of BOTH NTKs (if they issued two, one to the Garage then one to you) attach both sides of both as evidence that you aren't making the ownership up.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 28-02-2017 at 12:51 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 28th Feb 17, 1:20 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Many thanks.

    So adapt to this...

    I refer to the above Charge Notice issued to me by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) on 31/01/2017 relating to an event on 09/01/17. I confirm that I was the hirer of the vehicle on the relevant date, the vehicle being a car owned by the company VCS initially contacted (Hyundai). I am therefore its hirer for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN.

    I'll also remove the bits that you suggest relating to the registered keeper/driver.
    Last edited by Aligoose; 28-02-2017 at 1:28 PM.
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 28th Feb 17, 1:29 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    I don't have the NTK issued to Hyundai
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 2:06 PM
    • 45,809 Posts
    • 58,779 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    OK, and yes that is better, pushing the PPC to have to respond to you as hirer and show compliance with the POFA, not leaving the IAS 'person' the excuse of pretending a courtesy car isn't a form of hire.

    The IAS will probably still decide that he hasn't seen any evidence who was driving/not driving or some such twaddle.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 28th Feb 17, 2:23 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Great, thank you. I'll get that version submitted and see what response I get.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 28th Feb 17, 2:43 PM
    • 45,809 Posts
    • 58,779 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Just don't tick any box to say who the driver was - the IAS does ask.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 28th Feb 17, 4:24 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Thanks, I'd read about watching out for their site auto populating the driver box, sneaky.
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 14th Mar 17, 2:47 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    I submitted my appeal to the IAS as described above and received this response from the operator (VCS).

    The Operator Reported That...

    The appellant was the driver.
    The appellant was the keeper.
    ANPR/CCTV was used.
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 20/01/2017.
    A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
    The ticket was issued on 20/01/2017.
    The charge is based in Contract.

    The Operator Made The Following Comments...

    1. Humberside Airport and all its approach roads are private land which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to the Terms and Conditions of entry.

    2. There are 39 prominent information signs situated at key locations throughout the area which state: “RESTRICTED ZONE”, “No Stopping at Any Time”, “Strictly no stopping on red routes, double yellow lines, roadways or bus stops at any time”, and “£100 Charge If You Stop”. Site photographs supplied, confirm that signs can clearly be observed at the entrance and throughout the site.

    3. All signage at the airport uses the nationally recognised Highway Code roundel/symbol for 'NO STOPPING' (Clearway) and it should also be noted that the large entrance signs are 2000mm x 1100mm; to put the size of these signs into perspective, they are larger than a house door.

    4. The IPC Code of Practice states that signs in relation to a moving vehicle: “Contain text that is appropriate to the position of the sign and the relative position of the person who it is aimed at. So, if a sign is at an entrance of a site and the vehicle is likely to be moving, it must be sufficiently large to be clear from within the vehicle having regard to the likely speed that the vehicle will be travelling at that point.

    5. The CCTV images supplied taken from the recording made at the time, show that the appellant’s vehicle was stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited and renders a motorist liable for a charge of £100.00. The position of the appellant’s stationary vehicle is marked on the provided annotated vehicle location and site overhead diagrams supplied. Furthermore, the annotated vehicle location diagram highlights the vehicle’s proximity to the warning signs.

    6. Our CCTV footage shows that the appellant’s vehicle was stationary when first observed and remained so for 106 seconds, at which point the footage ends.

    7. It must be noted that to reach the point the vehicle stopped, the appellant will have driven past a minimum of 11 signs, including 2 Entrance Signs and at least 9 “Restricted Zone” “No Stopping at any time” “Mobile CCTV” signs. Therefore the driver had sufficient notice to decide whether or not to adhere to stopping restrictions.

    8. Please note that we operate to the International Parking Community's (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme. As members of the IPC, it is necessary for us to evidence to the IPC that we have relevant authority to undertake enforcement activity at the site concerned and that our signs in situ are compliant in setting out the relevant terms and conditions of use. We will only answer pertinent points at this stage.

    9. In this case, citing the case of Elliott v Loake 1982, we are relying on the presumption, on the balance of probability, that the appellant, as registered keeper of the vehicle in question, was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question and we support this by the knowledge the appellant has in relation to the circumstances ("events of the day") in relation to this Parking Charge Notice. Furthermore, the appellant does not deny being the driver nor is it stated that they do not know who the driver is.

    10. The appellant states that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, we have not cited PoFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper. We are suggesting you are liable for the Charge on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless evidence to the contrary is provided.

    11. The appellant has raised as an issue that we do not have the required authority to operate on this site. We would refer the Adjudicator to the signs which form the basis of this charge. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. Whilst we maintain that we do in fact have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract), the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ. As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal, which may be accessed and circulated by the appellant.

    12. In the appellant’s appeal, at no time does the appellant address why the vehicle stopped at a location where stopping was prohibited and they offer no mitigation or reason for that contravention except to say the driver stopped “momentarily”; furthermore as noted the appellant declined to name the driver but they do not deny being the driver nor do they state that they do not know who the driver was.

    13. When entering this private it is solely the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with, and to fully comply with the Terms and Conditions displayed.

    14. The appellant stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited and was therefore liable for a Charge as per the Terms and Conditions displayed.
    -----
    I now have until 16/3/17 to respond.

    They have incorrectly stated that the NTK was sent and the ticked issued on 20/01/17 when in fact my NTK is dated 31/01/17- the 20/01/17 may refer to when they sent the NTK to the garage.

    Please could anyone advise what my response should be?
    Should I repeat about the failure to comply with the requirements about sending the documents to me as hirer or are they saying they are not complying with that because they are assuming that I was the driver?

    Any help is much appreciated.
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 14th Mar 17, 9:38 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Can VCS rely on 'the PRESUMPTION that the registered keeper was the driver? As per their point number 9 or the ASSUMPTION that I was the driver as per their point number 10?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 7:16 AM
    • 12,629 Posts
    • 19,420 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Can VCS rely on 'the PRESUMPTION that the registered keeper was the driver? As per their point number 9 or the ASSUMPTION that I was the driver as per their point number 10?
    Originally posted by Aligoose
    They can try - but Elliott v Loakes was a criminal case with forensic evidence and has been dismissed a number of times by judges in private parking cases. Do some searches on the forum for 'Elliott v Loakes', or 'E v L' to read about the case. Parking Prankster has also covered it in his blogs.

    You need to understand the issue to be able to rebut it.

    You might also want to research 'Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films' as this is another one they might try to press the judge on. This was the case of an employer being held liable for the parking infringement of an employee while using a company vehicle. Not relevant at all in your case, but it won't stop them scraping any barrel bottom in an attempt to part you from your money.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Mar 17, 8:55 AM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 5,411 Thanks
    The Deep
    If you are a single person and the only named driver on your policy they may stand a chance. However, if others are named on the policy then they may struggle.

    In my case my wife and I share a car. It is registered in my name but my wife does about 80% of all shopping trips. It would be reasonable therefore for a PPC to assume that, in most instances, I was not the driver
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 15th Mar 17, 1:58 PM
    • 1,902 Posts
    • 2,643 Thanks
    nigelbb
    Can VCS rely on 'the PRESUMPTION that the registered keeper was the driver? As per their point number 9 or the ASSUMPTION that I was the driver as per their point number 10?
    Originally posted by Aligoose
    No, not least because the registered keeper is Hyundai & a company cannot possibly have driven the car.
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 15th Mar 17, 11:25 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Please could someone take a look at my proposed response to the IAS.......

    In response to the reply from VCS I would like to add the following to my earlier appeal regarding the lack of compliance with schedule 4 of PoFA. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and as no evidence has been produced then a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid Notice to Keeper or Notice to Hirer.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. A failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. .

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. VCS refer to Elliott v Loake but I fail to see the similarity with this case. My understanding is that the case referred to was a criminal matter in which forensic evidence was used to assist with identifying the driver of a vehicle

    In addition the cctv evidence provided by VCS does not correlate to their claim that the vehicle was stationary for 106 seconds. Their time stamps show the vehicle at 12:04:30-12:05:07 a significantly shorter time of 37 seconds.

    VCS at point 12 refer to no details of mitigation being provided to explain why the vehicle was stationary however in my initial appeal to VCS I informed them of the following: I would like to note that on the date this charge notice refers to (09/01/17) the driver had dropped off airport passengers in the designated car park and after departing the car park it was necessary to pull over momentarily. It was not a premeditated act to allow anyone to alight from or return to the vehicle. The driver opted for the safest place where they would cause no obstruction for the minimal amount of time that they were present.

    In VCS's response to my appeal they failed to mention the mitigating circumstances or to request any further information about why it had been necessary to stop the vehicle as they simply responded with an inaccurate pro-forma letter which appears to support the notion that there was never any intention of providing a fair appeal process.

    I would also query whether the land in question is covered by airport bylaws and whether this has any bearing on whether any alleged infringements should be dealt with under criminal law rather than civil law.

    As previously stated I would request that you uphold my appeal against this charge notice.
    -------

    Any thoughts on whether this is ok for the IAS stage?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 11:48 PM
    • 45,809 Posts
    • 58,779 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would not use any template wording for IAS.

    What evidence are you going to attach/upload? For example if you are saying you weren't driving you need to prove that to the IAS. If you are saying the PPC didn't follow the POFA, you need to upload a scan of both sides of the NTK to prove it (unless they already produced one in their 'prima facie case'...).

    If talking about VCS' response to your appeal you need to show that letter (unless VCS already did).

    etc.

    I would also query whether the land in question is covered by airport bylaws and whether this has any bearing on whether any alleged infringements should be dealt with under criminal law rather than civil law.
    Pointless querying something - the IAS are never going to assist. They will expect you to state and prove that the road is covered by statutory byelaws and show how the sections of byelaws assist your appeal.

    Your burden of proof is roof-height, whereas VCS just need a foot in the door and they will win. That's how the IAS 'works'.

    You need to be much, much more assertive and with evidence, blow by blow. No template.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 16th Mar 17, 7:55 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    Thanks for the advice.
    To be honest I'm struggling quite a bit with this. I've been looking at so many threads that I think I'm getting a bit confused about where my best challenges sit.

    I've already uploaded the NTK to IAS to show the lack of compliance with PoFA and I'll upload VCS reply to my initial appeal to show it was clearly a standard rejection letter with no consideration given to my mitigating circumstances.

    As I have to submit my reply to IAS by tonight I'm not going to get my head around all the points I might be able to challenge on-bye laws,contract, signage etc so if I keep the IAS appeal to the fact that they haven't shown who was driving and can't presume or assume that it's me, they have failed to consider my mitigation and have not provided cctv evidence to substantiate their claim of how long the vehicle was stopped would I be able to address other issues such as bylaws etc of the matter goes to court?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Mar 17, 8:46 AM
    • 12,629 Posts
    • 19,420 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Without dealing with all the issues provided by CM's advice, why are you even thinking about appealing to the IAS?

    Even if you gold-plated all of CM's points, there's a more than likely chance it would still be rejected by the IAS. What you're now likely to go with is a lamb to the slaughter offering. It will be rejected.

    Why give the PPC an IAS decision in their favour so they can wave this in front of a judge? Please go back to the NEWBIES sticky, post #3 and read the cons and cons of appealing to the IAS.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • Aligoose
    • By Aligoose 16th Mar 17, 2:21 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Aligoose
    I have already started the appeal process with IAS following earlier advice on this thread that I might have a point to make regarding the failure of VCS as far as the lack of a notice to hirer is concerned so I submitted my IAS appeal and then received the reply above which I have until midnight to respond to. I have already uploaded the NTK to show the lack of compliance with schedule 4 and I will also upload the VCS pro-forma letter to show their lack of acknowledgement of the mitigating circumstances. I plan to include the points above relating to the fact that VCS cannot presume/assume that I was the driver and cannot rely on Elliott v Loake to do so. As they have not complied with schedule 4 they have not transferred liability to the keeper either.

    I am asking whether anyone knows if I don't include a point in my IAS appeal would that mean that I can't use it in a Court hearing if it went that far?
    If they did pursue me to Court, taking in to account that if bylaws apply then I understand that the airport have 6 months to do so.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Mar 17, 3:03 PM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 5,411 Thanks
    The Deep
    Even if you gold-plated all of CM's points, there's a more than likely chance it would still be rejected by the IAS

    Which would mean that a court would have every reason to treat it with a great deal of suspicion.

    So why should not OP appeal to the kangaroo court? Doing so makes sound sense to m, especially as he/she is making all the right arguments. Any decision other than to allow the appeal would be perverse.

    If I was in OP's position I would put in a single point appeal citing byelaws.
    Last edited by The Deep; 16-03-2017 at 3:10 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

413Posts Today

4,320Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin