Liverpool Airport PCN received from Vehicle Control Services

Parking-Prankster

I just checked the address and it worked for me. Perhaps their mailbox filled up over xmas. I would try again.

Toiletduck

Parking-Prankster wrote: »

I just checked the address and it worked for me. Perhaps their mailbox filled up over xmas. I would try again.

I retried from a different email address and it worked, perhaps they block mail.com for some reason?

Have missed the 14 day cut off now though.

bod1467

I've not read the whole thread.

Toiletduck wrote: »

Have missed the 14 day cut off now though.

WHAT 14 day cut-off? The appeals window is 21-28 days (the latter I think), not 14 days.

Coupon-mad

Have missed the 14 day cut off now though.

Who cares about that?! Any 14 day timeline is merely the silly 'offer' of a discount (bribe) which you won't be paying anyway.

Toiletduck

bod1467 wrote: »

I've not read the whole thread.



WHAT 14 day cut-off? The appeals window is 21-28 days (the latter I think), not 14 days.

I meant for the discount, appeal window is 21 days so it was within that. Just annoying as it took almost a week to receive the delivery failure report. It could easily have gone outside the 21 days if I had appealed later.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter really, as you will need to ignore it at IAS stage anyway.

Toiletduck

Right so as expected appeal rejected by VCS.

Almost all the points were ignored as "not being appropriate to deal with at this stage". Blah blah, they will be defended at IAS/court etc etc.

Interestingly they put this statement in bold regarding who was driving:

"Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary."

The thing is, that reasonable assumption is incorrect.

The registered keeper was not the driver.

The registered keeper is a senior medical professional and at the exact time stated for issue of the PCN happened to be in a meeting with work in another city. Meeting minutes are likely to be available, at the very least one other attendee at the meeting could write a statement confirming to the whereabouts of the registered keeper being at this meeting at the time the PCN was issued.

Therefore, is it actually worth going down the IAS route if we can supply credible evidence the registered keeper was not the driver?

4consumerrights

Toiletduck wrote: »

Right so as expected appeal rejected by VCS.

Almost all the points were ignored as "not being appropriate to deal with at this stage". Blah blah, they will be defended at IAS/court etc etc.

Interestingly they put this statement in bold regarding who was driving:

"Please note that we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary."

The thing is, that reasonable assumption is incorrect.

The registered keeper was not the driver.

The registered keeper is a senior medical professional and at the exact time stated for issue of the PCN happened to be in a meeting with work in another city. Meeting minutes are likely to be available, at the very least one other attendee at the meeting could write a statement confirming to the whereabouts of the registered keeper being at this meeting at the time the PCN was issued.

Therefore, is it actually worth going down the IAS route if we can supply credible evidence the registered keeper was not the driver?

I know I was going to stay out of this one but...


YES do - would be good to see how IAS deal with that evidence.

Besides which contrary to other advice given by some posters, I would always advocate appealing to the IAS - and would go a step further adding into the appeal that should the appeal be declined without a name of the allegedly independent solicitor then the matter will be referred to relevant bodies including the SRA; DVLA TS .

Consumers are also able to complain to the legal ombudsman - which I would consider to see if they can assist - considering as this is meant to be independently reviewed by a solicitor / barrister who is nameless.

The appeal outcome is not binding on you and demonstrates that you have reasonably followed the options open to you (it is not your fault that their process is done in this manner). The appeal also costs the PPC regardless.

Coupon-mad

Do not bother with IAS. A kangaroo court set up for consumers to lose.

Toiletduck

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes do exactly that, but you would also have to attach both sides of the NTK and prove clearly to the IAS that the NTK is not one which can hold the keeper liable. Or the IAS smarmy git would say 'so the appellant has shown he was not the driver but I have not been provided with the Notice so, on the balance of probabilities on cloud cuckoo land, it is safe to assume it is compliant with Schedule 4 and he can be held liable...'

OK thanks, so how do I confirm that the NTK from VCS is not one that can hold the keeper liable?

Cheers