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
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 23rd Aug 17, 1:42 PM
    • 42Posts
    • 10Thanks
    chrishgt4
    Parking Charge Notice from VCS - have Parking Ticket
    • #1
    • 23rd Aug 17, 1:42 PM
    Parking Charge Notice from VCS - have Parking Ticket 23rd Aug 17 at 1:42 PM
    Hi,

    I've had a bit of a search but can't seem to find what to do in the circumstance that I am in.

    A car to which I have access was parked with a paid ticket. However, this was face down in the car.

    Driver arrived back at the car to find a card directing the driver to myparkingcharge.co.uk

    I contacted the venue that the car park is for who said they don't get involved.

    A week later the owner received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter stating the contravention reason being parked without clearly displaying a valid ticket/permit.

    First question is - if the card on the windscreen is not a notice to keeper, how did they get access to the keeper's details. I thought this was only allowed after 28 days of the date on the NTK date.

    Second question is - that aside, given that I have a parking ticket for the appropriate date and time, is it worth pursuing a resolution directly based on that? Their photos show the back of the ticket bearing the same ID number as the front of the ticket that I have in my possession, so it's not really arguable that it is a different ticket. Or would they just stand by the fact that the contravention is improper display of said ticket?

    Apologies as I'm sure this question has been asked and answered but I just couldn't find anything specific to VCS regarding improper display.

    Thanks in advance

    Chris
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 23rd Aug 17, 1:53 PM
    • 40,477 Posts
    • 80,859 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 23rd Aug 17, 1:53 PM
    • #2
    • 23rd Aug 17, 1:53 PM
    The DVLA in their infinite wisdom have said that since this isn't a NTD then it is perfectly acceptable to send an NTK within 14 days.

    I'm assuming VCS is Vehicle Control Services, not Vehicle Control Solutions, so you should send the IPC black template from the NEWBIES thread then read up on what to do if/when it is rejected.

    Make sure you do not reveal who was driving.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 23-08-2017 at 1:55 PM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 23rd Aug 17, 1:55 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    • #3
    • 23rd Aug 17, 1:55 PM
    • #3
    • 23rd Aug 17, 1:55 PM
    The DVLA in their infinite wisdom have said that since this isn't a NTD then it is perfectly acceptable to send an NTK within 14 days.

    I'm assuming VCS is Vehicle Control Services, not Vehicle Control Solutions, so you should send the IPC black template from the NEWBIES thread then read up on what to do if/when it is rejected.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    They are indeed Vehicle Control SERVICES.

    Many thanks for the explanation. I (perhaps naively) hoped that having a valid ticket might be a quick solution.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 23rd Aug 17, 2:01 PM
    • 40,477 Posts
    • 80,859 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 23rd Aug 17, 2:01 PM
    • #4
    • 23rd Aug 17, 2:01 PM
    They are indeed Vehicle Control SERVICES.

    Many thanks for the explanation. I (perhaps naively) hoped that having a valid ticket might be a quick solution.
    Originally posted by chrishgt4
    You or I, or indeed the man on the Clapham omnibus might think that a notice left on a vehicle windscreen that a driver would find is a notice to driver, but the DVLA have said this is not the case.
    The scammers have found a way of leaving a (Not a) Notice to Driver for the driver to notice in the hope they will panic and pay up, saving the scammers the DVLA fee.
    If it doesn't work then they send out a NTK and have lost nothing.

    There is not normally a quick solution to a private parking charge.

    Follow the tried and tested process and come back here if you need further help.

    Please do complain to your MP about this.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 6th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    • #5
    • 6th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Sep 17, 10:21 AM
    Hi,

    I have received the rejection as expected so am processing through as per the newbies thread and going to send a letter rejecting the IPC appeals process as per http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/consumer-ombudsman-can-deal-with.html

    On the newbies thread, it also suggests going to the car park owner directly which I would like to do and as such have prepared an email to send to the Chief Executive, the Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Finance & Estates, and the Community Liaison Manager which I have practically copied wholesale from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83766

    Also, would email be acceptable, or should I look at registered post?

    The only concern I have, is that this may be a mis-step as it is essentially admitting who was driving the vehicle at the time.

    Am I right to be concerned about this? Should I let it lie with the landowners?

    The letter I have prepared is as follows:

    Dear Steve, Andrew and Uri,

    I am forced to make an official complaint to you because the actions of your agent, Vehicle Control Services, are upsetting, intimidatory and will drive away genuine Sheffield Arena customers in the long run. You can no doubt guess that I have received a letter purporting to mimic a 'parking ticket' from VCS.

    Having been a satisfied visitor to Sheffield Arena on several occasions in the past (most recently Prof. Brian Cox), when attending a gig at the nearby Don Valley Bowl on *DATE* my wife and I decided that the Sheffield Arena car park was the ideal place to park.
    I purchased the appropriate ticket which was valid until 8am the following morning, placed it on the dashboard, and went to the gig.

    I was extremely perturbed to discover, upon my return, that I had what appeared to be a parking ticket on the windscreen of the car. I was, as I’m sure you imagine, confused about this. When I followed the link on the windscreen notice, it showed photographs of the vehicle with the parking ticket placed face down.

    I initially contacted Sheffield Arena directly as this was clearly a simple error and assumed it would be simple for it to be rectified directly, but I was advised this was not possible. ‘Not a problem’ I thought, as clearly when I sent the photo of the ticket to CVS in appeal they would be able to reconcile the reference number on the front of the ticket with that on the rear, and all would be well.

    This has not been the case as they have rejected my appeal at this stage and have sent a further letter, with insidiously worded threats of court action clearly designed to instil fear in the recipient.

    I have therefore found myself in a situation where I am now expected to have to defend my actions to a third party private company whom I have had no dealings with, no contract with, and who are demanding a lot of money from me - in my book that is totally unacceptable.

    I am very upset and increasingly angry about this entire episode. After an enjoyable gig, my decision to use your parking area has now left a nasty taste in the mouth, and will seriously consider where I choose to go to gigs/shows in the future. My wife and I are horrified that Sheffield Arena can allow such a notorious firm to harass customers on your behalf.

    I have researched the matter and intend to escalate my challenge against Vehicle Control Services to an independent stage. However, I am giving SIV the chance to quash the fake PCN once and for all because I feel you need to know that you and your agents are alienating genuine customers due to VCS's zero-tolerance policy.

    Well before renewing your contracts with Vehicle Control Services when the time comes, might I just suggest you take time to read and digest the implications to other businesses & customers, and the picture painted of the typically aggressive business practices of Private ANPR Operators, as set out in the full court judgment for 'Parking Eye v Somerfield - Case No: A3/2011/0909'.
    Notwithstanding what Parking Eye may well have to say on the matter, no doubt involving spin about their firm 'being members of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme' (in reality, merely trade body 'club membership' which enables them to buy registered keeper data and certainly does not 'regulate' their industry) I would also respectfully suggest that SIV should research the company you are associating with - in truth, Vehicle Control Services have a terrible online reputation and are now suing customers over minor 'infringements' without referral to their clients, like yourselves, who may still naively believe that their agenda is 'parking management'. It seems that so many clients, blinded by the idea of 'parking management for free' have fallen for the spiel of a dominant company whose agenda is profit alone. It is pure profiteering by your agent, routinely 'farming' car parks with no consideration for individual customer needs and circumstances.

    I would welcome your own view on this harassment and hope you see fit to ensure that VCS cancel the 'ticket' forthwith.

    Please find details of the parking charge attached.

    Yours sincerely,

    Driver Name


    I have also prepared (copied from http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/consumer-ombudsman-can-deal-with.html )

    I would be most appreciative if someone could confirm that a) I've used the right letter, but mainly b) that since this was created some time ago, that the information is still actually factually correct.

    Dear Vehicle Control Services,

    You have suggested we use the non-standard appeals service offered by the IAS. This service does not meet the statutory requirements for an ADR Entity. These requirements are listed in Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 and the requirements not met are as follows:


    5c (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;
    7(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the information and documents provided under paragraph (b);
    13. The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—(a)-(f)
    4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute—
    3(a) ensures that an ADR official possesses a general understanding of the law and the necessary knowledge and skills relating to the out-of-court or judicial resolution of consumer disputes, to be able to carry out his or her functions competently;

    5c fails because the names of the assessors are kept secret.

    7c fails because the operator is allowed to introduce new evidence which the motorist is not allowed to comment on

    13 fails because the service refuses to deal with disputes from vehicle keepers in Scotland. This is not one of the categories for which refusal is allowed

    4 fails because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The service is masterminded by Will Hurley and John Davies. These two people are also directors of Gladstones Solicitors who file large numbers of claims on behalf of operators. They therefore have a financial interest in motorists failing appeals so they can then lure operators into filing a court claim.

    3(a) fails because the assessors do not understand parking related law or consumer law. I quote a recent decision which illustrates this, where the assessor decides that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not have to be met for keeper liability to apply:


    Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case[1], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.
    [1] ParkingEye v Beavis

    Obviously an appeals service where the assessors decide that the statutes do not apply, and misquote case law in this way, is not fit for purpose. It is of course ironic that the assessor is saying that the very existence of POFA 2012 is proof that the actual requirements of POFA 2012 can be ignored. No wonder the assessors do not wish their names to be known.

    The DVLA and the CTSI are well aware of the shortcomings of the IAS appeals service, which is currently being investigated by both of them. The legislation does give an ADR Entity six months to improve its processes and meet the legislation.

    I therefore believe that the IAS is not a fit body to use until both the DVLA and CTSI have finished their investigations, and the body has changed its processes to meet the legislation. I would be prepared to wait until this point in time if you agree.

    Failing that, I propose that instead of the IAS, we use an ADR Entity which does currently meet all the regulatory requirements right now. One such body is the Consumer Ombudsman available at this website http://www.consumer-ombudsman.org/

    I propose we use this body. Please note that practice directions state the court may impose sanctions if you unreasonably refuse to use a form of ADR, or fail to respond at all to an invitation to do so.

    Yours,



    Keeper Name

    Thanks, and apologies for the monster post!
    Last edited by chrishgt4; 06-09-2017 at 1:38 PM. Reason: remove personal info
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 6th Sep 17, 11:14 AM
    • 6,348 Posts
    • 8,152 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #6
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:14 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:14 AM
    We applaud you for taking the time to formulate this

    You will have better luck with the landowner as VCS are not
    interested as their whole business model in life is to scam
    as many people as possible.

    VCS joined the IPC for the very reasons you state.
    It's a complete scammers club designed to extort money
    from the motorists

    Theresa May has been told about this mega scam many
    times but ignores thereby giving the impression that she
    is a scammers friend despite her saying she wants a
    fairer Britain
    I think like most people, we take what May says with
    a pinch of salt but another letter from you might just
    wake up her memory

    VCS, if they reply, will just send a typical nonsense
    scammers reply
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Sep 17, 11:37 AM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    • #7
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:37 AM
    • #7
    • 6th Sep 17, 11:37 AM
    Regarding "outing" yourself as driver, there are two schools of thought.


    1. Do not do it. Write that letter referring to yourself as reg keeper, but to the driver in third person throughout.


    2. Where you have a good defence as driver, and you were driving, there is no point in denying it (which would also be lying, as opposed to "not admitting" it). You just say you were driving and rely on the good defence. Sometimes, if you deny being the driver it makes it more difficult for you to rely on what would otherwise be a good defence.


    Here you have the "fluttering ticket" defence: I bought a ticket, it wasn't fit for purpose because it didn't have a sticky back and as I closed the door (in the dark) it obviously flipped over on the dashboard.


    Cases have been won on this argument (I think there is a judgment about it somewhere). Technically you are in breach of contract by not displaying it properly (if there was a contract formed by the signage), but so are they by not providing a fit for purpose ticket to enable you to display it correctly.


    Search "fluttering ticket" on this forum and you'll find other cases to refer to and rely on.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 6th Sep 17, 12:06 PM
    • 1,301 Posts
    • 1,687 Thanks
    Castle
    • #8
    • 6th Sep 17, 12:06 PM
    • #8
    • 6th Sep 17, 12:06 PM

    Cases have been won on this argument (I think there is a judgment about it somewhere). Technically you are in breach of contract by not displaying it properly (if there was a contract formed by the signage), but so are they by not providing a fit for purpose ticket to enable you to display it correctly.


    Search "fluttering ticket" on this forum and you'll find other cases to refer to and rely on.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Here's a case won in respect of an upside down ticket; so similar:-
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/gladstones-pick-link-parkings-pocket.html
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 6th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    • #9
    • 6th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    • #9
    • 6th Sep 17, 1:26 PM
    Regarding "outing" yourself as driver, there are two schools of thought.


    1. Do not do it. Write that letter referring to yourself as reg keeper, but to the driver in third person throughout.


    2. Where you have a good defence as driver, and you were driving, there is no point in denying it (which would also be lying, as opposed to "not admitting" it). You just say you were driving and rely on the good defence. Sometimes, if you deny being the driver it makes it more difficult for you to rely on what would otherwise be a good defence.


    Here you have the "fluttering ticket" defence: I bought a ticket, it wasn't fit for purpose because it didn't have a sticky back and as I closed the door (in the dark) it obviously flipped over on the dashboard.


    Cases have been won on this argument (I think there is a judgment about it somewhere). Technically you are in breach of contract by not displaying it properly (if there was a contract formed by the signage), but so are they by not providing a fit for purpose ticket to enable you to display it correctly.


    Search "fluttering ticket" on this forum and you'll find other cases to refer to and rely on.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    I did think about writing it in the 3rd person, but felt it lost a bit of its impact as a complaint.

    Regarding the fluttering ticket, and the non-sticky point; I'll remember that if it ends up going further as I think that is a great argument. Also, there is the question as to why they include a ticket reference number on the underside of the ticket if not for this exact scenario!

    I did wonder, if in the same way as them being pedantic with the rules - the ticked specifies that it should be 'Clearly Displayed'. It doesn't state it has to be one way up or the other, so could one argue on this point.

    From what I understand now, they will refuse to go to an independent board, I will refuse to appeal to the IPC, and they will start sending threatening letter which I flat out ignore.

    Is this correct?

    Also, as I am not the owner of the vehicle, presumably if this goes to court then I wouldn't be able to do anything and rely on the owner going to court? That's not an ideal thing to impose on a mate, so perhaps outing myself as the driver is the best case at this point?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Sep 17, 2:12 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Yes you could argue that as the reference number was on the bottom, I think that strengthens the argument.


    I hadn't realised you weren't RK.


    So first Q is whether RK is liable as RK (ie POFA complied with) - you are in the no-NTD category so NtK to be served within 14 days. So I think POFA is complied with. So RK becomes liable unless driver is named.


    Therefore it seems to me that you are better off outing yourself as driver and defending it with the driver's defence (I did buy a ticket, I did display it, it flipped over because it wasn't fit for purpose - in providing such a ticket you frustrated any contract etc). Otherwise you have to leave the RK to defend, which you clearly don't want to do. It would be different if the NtK was not POFA compliant (then I'd say RK might as well defend).
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Sep 17, 2:17 PM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Some people appeal to IAS, others don't bother. On rare occasions IAS appeals succeed (they seem to pull these out of the hat to satisfy a %age criteria of successful appeals). On the other hand, if you appeal unsuccessfully (and if you don't bother with an appeal) then they can say later that this adds weight to their claim/you didn't bother following correct procedures, and your argument that an IAS appeal is pointless because it's the same monkeys grinding the organ might fall on deaf ears. However, the absence of an IAS appeal or an unsuccessful IAS appeal is not a point that will win a claim so I don't think it matters.


    Once you've appealed or decided not to, you will get a series of threatening debt collector letters. You can ignore these. This can go on for up to 6 years. So if you move you need to ensure that you set up postal redirection and, ultimately, that you tell them your new address. You risk them issuing proceedings without you knowing otherwise.


    In the end you'll get a Letter Before Claim. You need to respond formally to this and you must ask them for all relevant documentation and evidence at that stage. You'll also need to point out any failures to comply with the relevant pre-action protocol (a new one is coming in this October).
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 06-09-2017 at 2:31 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 12:15 AM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    VCS do not state the 28 day period for keeper liability correctly on their NTKs though, which is a reason not to say who the driver was. Not that anything needs doing now, certainly no IAS appeal!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 7th Sep 17, 7:52 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    VCS do not state the 28 day period for keeper liability correctly on their NTKs though, which is a reason not to say who the driver was. Not that anything needs doing now, certainly no IAS appeal!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Do you mean there is something in their wording that is incorrect? As they do mention the 28 day period for notifying of the driver.

    The only problem with not notifying is if it does end up going to court then I'll be dropping a mate in it so was just planning on amending the top of the letter to read "I, *NAME*, was the driver at this time, not the registered keeper, and as such I wish to remove the Keeper from any liability and manage this myself."

    Would you suggest not to do that as the chances of it going to court are so slim? Or at this point might I as well admit I was the driver to save the potential problem?

    Also, is it worth including in my response to them where I request we go through a truly independent arbitrator, including the arguments above about it was dark, ticket turned over, it's not sticky, not fit for purpose - frustrated contract and that it was displayed clearly as instructed but nowhere does it specify which side of the ticket should be displayed - and that in any case it would be fair to assume that as there is a unique reference number on the rear, that displaying that would be acceptable. Or should I hold that back in the event they try to take it further?
    Last edited by chrishgt4; 07-09-2017 at 8:56 AM.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 7th Sep 17, 10:51 AM
    • 10,202 Posts
    • 9,347 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Do nothing and the Registered Keeper cops it.

    The PPCs refuse truly independent arbitration.

    Just do as others suggest.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 7th Sep 17, 11:54 AM
    • 1,603 Posts
    • 2,713 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    If you keep your powder dry and hope that they make a mistake which means there's no keeper liability, and if they do make a mistake then your friend has a good defence that he is not liable as RK and was not driving so cannot be liable as driver.


    If you keep your powder dry hoping for a mistake that they don't make, then friend becomes liable as RK. He then has to defend on basis that the claim is flawed because of the fluttering ticket defence (possibly other defences based on signage as well).


    Either way, you will have dropped your friend in it. Whichever way he defends (not liable as RK, or liable but claim fails because of fluttering ticket argument) he's not going to thank you for making him defend a court claim.


    In reality, assuming POFA is complied with and he becomes liable as RK, what he'll do is rely on YOUR evidence as driver. You'll then out yourself at that stage. But he remains liable as RK. You will have to support him in any claim by making a statement with all the fluttering ticket stuff. But the claim will still be against your friend, not you. Even though you'll effectively take "the lead" in any claim by providing all the evidence, it will be against him. He will therefore HAVE to attend court (if it gets that far - VCS do tend to pursue claims). And so will you (as a witness). You'd obviously have to clear all this with your friend and he may not be willing to go along with it.

    The alternative, which I and some (but not all) other regular posters recommend where there is a good driver's defence, is outing yourself from the start and making your defence clear.

    If you don't out the driver now, you can't rely at this stage on all that fluttering ticket stuff and the reference number on the back etc, because that information would only be known to the driver and not the RK. I suppose RK could correspond with them and say he knows who the driver is and can produce evidence that it wasn't him, that he's not going to id the driver because he has no obligation to do so but he's spoken to them and is aware of all the facts and there is clearly a good defence (and get the fluttering ticket stuff in that way).

    You could wait and see, but you'd have to clear that with your friend and if it gets as far as proceedings they will go against whoever they think is the weakest link. Your friend will have to keep on top of all the chaser letters and the LBC etc.


    Once POFA is complied with the RK becomes liable after the NtK is served, as if he were the driver, even if the driver is later identified. The PPC can therefore choose to claim against RK or driver. If POFA is complied with, the RK is only absolved of liability if he identifies the driver BEFORE the NtK period ends.

    All things considered, UNLESS you think RK has a good POFA defence which makes the NtK non compliant, then RK should out you as driver to absolve himself of any liability under POFA.


    If there are proceedings against RK, whilst you will effectively defend on his behalf he won't be absolved from having to attend court, comply with court deadlines etc.
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 07-09-2017 at 12:03 PM.
    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 7th Sep 17, 12:57 PM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    If you keep your powder dry and hope that they make a mistake which means there's no keeper liability, and if they do make a mistake then your friend has a good defence that he is not liable as RK and was not driving so cannot be liable as driver.


    If you keep your powder dry hoping for a mistake that they don't make, then friend becomes liable as RK. He then has to defend on basis that the claim is flawed because of the fluttering ticket defence (possibly other defences based on signage as well).


    Either way, you will have dropped your friend in it. Whichever way he defends (not liable as RK, or liable but claim fails because of fluttering ticket argument) he's not going to thank you for making him defend a court claim.


    In reality, assuming POFA is complied with and he becomes liable as RK, what he'll do is rely on YOUR evidence as driver. You'll then out yourself at that stage. But he remains liable as RK. You will have to support him in any claim by making a statement with all the fluttering ticket stuff. But the claim will still be against your friend, not you. Even though you'll effectively take "the lead" in any claim by providing all the evidence, it will be against him. He will therefore HAVE to attend court (if it gets that far - VCS do tend to pursue claims). And so will you (as a witness). You'd obviously have to clear all this with your friend and he may not be willing to go along with it.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    So that sounds to me like the stage I'm at (RK received NTK, Replied to them denying to provide information and denying the claim citing the fact of having a valid ticket, they subsequently replied offering arbitration) that I've actually caused the RK to be liable and outing myself at the moment, whilst probably not causing me issues, won't alleviate the responsibility laying at the feet of the RK?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Sep 17, 3:47 PM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Not with a non-compliant NTK.

    Yes, as stated on other threads like this, it has the 28 day period wrongly stated, you only need compare the words to Schedule 4 paragraph 8.

    Search the forum for 'myparkingcharge.co.uk VCS 28 days' or similar, and you will find it said already.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 8th Sep 17, 8:41 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    Not with a non-compliant NTK.

    Yes, as stated on other threads like this, it has the 28 day period wrongly stated, you only need compare the words to Schedule 4 paragraph 8.

    Search the forum for 'myparkingcharge.co.uk VCS 28 days' or similar, and you will find it said already.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I don't know if they've sorted this out then, because the wording on my letter looks like it conforms now. It's virtually word for word from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    "(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—
    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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;"

    Their letter reads:

    "Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from the registered keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge. This Notice will be deemed to have been received by you on the second working day after the Issue Date stated above unless the contrary is proved."


    I appreciate this has probably been answered and there is some subtlety I am missing, but I've not been lazy with this. I've gone round this forum and peepipoo and there is definitely contradictory information which, were I the owner wouldn't really be a problem, as I'd be both driver and RK so no problem, but it's just left me confused about the finer detail of this.

    But as per the above, it did look to me like they are following correct protocol and I don't have the level of knowledge on this subject to know if I'm missing something. From everything I've read it just does look like they are following correct procedure.

    So I don't know where I stand, in that - have I dropped the RK in it because VCS are doing it right and it's now outside of 28 days?
    If that's the case should I try naming myself to take the burden off of him or will they still just pursue him anyway?

    Have they got it wrong and there's nothing to worry about?

    In either instance though might my mate end up with a court date trying to defend this all because I've approached this wrongly?

    As per Loadsofchildren -
    "Once POFA is complied with the RK becomes liable after the NtK is served, as if he were the driver, even if the driver is later identified. The PPC can therefore choose to claim against RK or driver. If POFA is complied with, the RK is only absolved of liability if he identifies the driver BEFORE the NtK period ends.

    All things considered, UNLESS you think RK has a good POFA defence which makes the NtK non compliant, then RK should out you as driver to absolve himself of any liability under POFA."

    The driver has not been identified BEFORE the 28 day period.
    Unless I'm missing something they are POFA compliant.

    So I'm a little stressed I've dropped a clanger and dropped my mate right in it.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Sep 17, 10:15 AM
    • 51,534 Posts
    • 65,137 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree, they've used POFA compliant wording there. How very annoying. It could be argued the 'fake PCN trick' is a Parking Charge even though they say it is not, but a Judge might not understand the nuances.

    If it is considered a 'PCN' then they should have waited till day 29 to get your data but the DVLA are aware of this conduct and haven't banned it, and seem to have swallowed the line from the IPC that 'this isn't a parking change/notice to driver' (absolute balderdash, IMHO!).

    An email or letter should be sent (and keep proof) from the keeper now, if you want to be named as driver. There is NO DEADLINE to transfer liability in the first 28 days, in fact Schedule 4 says that part 'ceases to apply' when 'proceedings commence'. So, before court claims commence, a keeper CAN lawfully write to transfer liability (name and address of the driver).

    Even if the PPC reply and say it's too late - they are lying.

    Don't write yourself, the keeper needs to transfer liability and keep proof (free cert from the Post Office, not signed-for, not recorded, not special delivery).
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 08-09-2017 at 10:18 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • chrishgt4
    • By chrishgt4 8th Sep 17, 11:31 AM
    • 42 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    chrishgt4
    I agree, they've used POFA compliant wording there. How very annoying. It could be argued the 'fake PCN trick' is a Parking Charge even though they say it is not, but a Judge might not understand the nuances.

    If it is considered a 'PCN' then they should have waited till day 29 to get your data but the DVLA are aware of this conduct and haven't banned it, and seem to have swallowed the line from the IPC that 'this isn't a parking change/notice to driver' (absolute balderdash, IMHO!).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yea that was the first thing I thought, but apparently the DVLA have ruled that this is acceptable...which personally I think is disgraceful!


    An email or letter should be sent (and keep proof) from the keeper now, if you want to be named as driver. There is NO DEADLINE to transfer liability in the first 28 days, in fact Schedule 4 says that part 'ceases to apply' when 'proceedings commence'. So, before court claims commence, a keeper CAN lawfully write to transfer liability (name and address of the driver).

    Even if the PPC reply and say it's too late - they are lying.

    Don't write yourself, the keeper needs to transfer liability and keep proof (free cert from the Post Office, not signed-for, not recorded, not special delivery).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Excellent, thanks for that! I'll reword the letter to be from the RK and just pass liability on to me.

    Feeling much calmer now!

    VCS Ltd
    Central Payment Office
    P.O. Box 4777
    Sheffield
    S9 9DJ
    06/09/2017

    Dear Vehicle Control Services,
    Re: *REF NO*

    I wish at this point to give information of the driver at the time being *DRIVER* of *ADDRESS*. Please direct all further communications to *HIM/HER*.
    *HE/SHE* has asked me to detail the following in relation to the appeal:

    You have suggested we use the non-standard appeals service offered by the IAS. This service does not meet the statutory requirements for an ADR Entity. These requirements are listed in Schedule 3 of The Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes Regulations 2015 and the requirements not met are as follows:

    5c (c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment;
    7(c) ensures that the parties may, within a reasonable period of time, comment on the information and documents provided under paragraph (b);

    13. The body may only refuse to deal with a domestic dispute or a cross-border dispute which it is competent to deal with on one of the following grounds—(a)-(f)

    4. The body has in place the following procedure in the event that an ADR official declares or is discovered to have a conflict of interest in relation to a domestic dispute or cross-border dispute—
    3(a) ensures that an ADR official possesses a general understanding of the law and the necessary knowledge and skills relating to the out-of-court or judicial resolution of consumer disputes, to be able to carry out his or her functions competently;

    5c fails because the names of the assessors are kept secret.

    7c fails because the operator is allowed to introduce new evidence which the motorist is not allowed to comment on

    13 fails because the service refuses to deal with disputes from vehicle keepers in Scotland. This is not one of the categories for which refusal is allowed

    4 fails because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. The service is masterminded by Will Hurley and John Davies. These two people are also directors of Gladstones Solicitors who file large numbers of claims on behalf of operators. They therefore have a financial interest in motorists failing appeals so they can then lure operators into filing a court claim.
    3(a) fails because the assessors do not understand parking related law or consumer law. I quote a recent decision which illustrates this, where the assessor decides that the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 do not have to be met for keeper liability to apply:
    Non-compliance with POFA 2012. From the same case[1], Moore-Bick LJ said that the provisions in the POFA strongly supported the conclusion that Parliament considered it to be in the public interest that parking charges of this kind should be recoverable.

    [1] ParkingEye v Beavis

    Obviously an appeals service where the assessors decide that the statutes do not apply, and misquote case law in this way, is not fit for purpose. It is of course ironic that the assessor is saying that the very existence of POFA 2012 is proof that the actual requirements of POFA 2012 can be ignored. No wonder the assessors do not wish their names to be known.

    The DVLA and the CTSI are well aware of the shortcomings of the IAS appeals service, which is currently being investigated by both of them. The legislation does give an ADR Entity six months to improve its processes and meet the legislation.

    I therefore believe that the IAS is not a fit body to use until both the DVLA and CTSI have finished their investigations, and the body has changed its processes to meet the legislation. I would be prepared to wait until this point in time if you agree.

    Failing that, I propose that instead of the IAS, we use an ADR Entity which does currently meet all the regulatory requirements right now. One such body is the Consumer Ombudsman available at this website http://www.consumer-ombudsman.org/
    I propose we use this body. Please note that practice directions state the court may impose sanctions if you unreasonably refuse to use a form of ADR, or fail to respond at all to an invitation to do so.

    Yours,

    *RK*

    I'll come back and update how it progresses for anyone having problem in the future to search on.
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

2,782Posts Today

8,952Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Sadly for those buying jointly "Where there are joint purchasers, all purchasers would need to be first-time buyers. "

  • First time buyers usually defined as someone who has never owned or part owned a property https://t.co/yM3urZNs8z

  • You will not pay stamp duty https://t.co/vHoCWiUXfo

  • Follow Martin