VCS - G24 LTd & NTC have joined the IPC

HO87

Ah, newbie username perhaps but not otherwise a newbie I suspect.

Hot_Bring

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

You are not dealing with some tin pot ink jet printed NTKs here.

You are with G24 who are utter incompetent. I doubt they will even have the ability to change their signs.

EnigmaPart1

Hot_Bring wrote: »

You are with G24 who are utter incompetent. I doubt they will even have the ability to change their signs.

G24 are not the issue. They are but a flea bite on a horse.

esmerobbo

I wonder how the BPA see a board members company jumping ship?

As HO87 has stated I cant see how a contractual charge can be implemented at these airport approach roads. Or as on most of Peels land around here any stopping.

EnigmaPart1

esmerobbo wrote: »

I wonder how the BPA see a board members company jumping ship?

As HO87 has stated I cant see how a contractual charge can be implemented at these airport approach roads. Or as on most of Peels land around here any stopping.

The IPC does not require all members to use contractual charge, hence why this may well not be a contractual charge.

Coupon-mad

We need a standard paragraph IAS appeals to stop them making that stupid assumption that was made in NobleSX's case, so maybe:


' {blah blah...NTK is pants because...paragraph 8 or 9 omissions such as 'no creditor, no period of parking, no section describing the unpaid parking charges (tariff sum, or zero) that remained outstanding the day before the Notice was issued...'} and as such there is no keeper liability under the POFA 2012. For the avoidance of doubt, I am the registered keeper and no formal admissions have been made and no evidence was presented by PPC in their well-rehearsed template letters, as to the identity of the driver on that occasion. More than one person can drive/does drive this vehicle and it is not for me to help 'PPC' with their 'evidence' by naming the driver they allege they contracted with that day. Their attempt to charge me, as keeper, is without merit and unsupported by the law.

PPC can no more make an assumption as to who the driver was than the IAS Adjudicator could; it is never 'safe to assume on the balance of probabilities' that a keeper 'must' be the driver without any evidence and where there is more than one driver of the vehicle. This would of course be patent nonsense in a decision which must be found on facts alone. I am comforted by the thought that, surely, the independent IAS barrister reading this appeal cannot make unsafe assumptions when only the facts must count. The facts are that non-compliance with a mandatory and prescribed document (a Notice to Keeper) renders the charge unenforceable against me, as keeper.

EnigmaPart1

However if VCS gets the NTK right and served in time then it renders that point redundant.

Arguing the point that keeper liability doesn't exist at the JLA may hold have some argument but I wouldn't hold your breath with IPC.

ezerscrooge

I may be very wrong but... would the 'contractural charge' issue result in a change to the business rates for the car parks etc?

For a previously free car park a change to a 'contractural charge' is a clear indication that the car park is now intended to be generating revenue, so could this affect the rateable value therefore business rates must be reassessed?.

How many of the VCS/NTC/G24 landowners will want this?

Coupon-mad

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

However if VCS gets the NTK right and served in time then it renders that point redundant.

Arguing the point that keeper liability doesn't exist at the JLA may hold have some argument but I wouldn't hold your breath with IPC.

We are not holding our breath with the IAS - they are useless which was proved with the 2 cases shown quoted side-by-side by Dee recently, in NobleSX's thread.

However I am not one to throw in the towel with winning appeals and nor do we tell people to pay if (when!) the IAS make a stupid decision.

And there is more than one way to skin a cat - e.g. the PTAs solution which doesn't rely upon the same as we do here, and still no-one pays a PPC.

EnigmaPart1 wrote: »

You are not dealing with some tin pot ink jet printed NTKs here.

Oh yes we are. All the time, all cases. I can't name one that's fully compliant, not a single one.

We also have the landowner/retailers to 'attack' now, personally by the wronged motorist, under the new Consumer Protection regs. That may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back if the client cannot/doesn't bother to defend or show due diligence (and many would just pay the motorist out of court I expect, and if they are stung enough then a re-think will happen). PPCs are 99% of the time, just parasitical agents of a client who are a very good target, if need be, for people to sue.

EnigmaPart1

Could SRS be testing VCS at the IPC before he takes Excel over there?