Would this be permitted in law?

hoohoo

That will be interesting then. VCS are members of the IPC, whose appeals system is provably corruptible (the IPC get to chose anonymous assessors, and so can choose ones who give verdicts they want).

Some VCS sites charge for breach of contact, so you should still win at the IPC. We will wait and see...

Captain_Leaky

I am not quite sure that I understand what you mean but I hope the company I have paid will sort it out for us.

bazster

Yes well, it would help if you could get the company name right having got it wrong twice.

The actual company you have paid definitely does not operate the highly-implausible hypothetical model you described above. However, there are those who think that what they do with tickets from IPC members is downright dangerous for the punter. You might want to ask them exactly what it is they propose to do with your ticket, and see what you think of the answer (bearing in mind that it is not unheard of for VCS to take court action against non-payers).

Captain_Leaky

Well I have just received this from them. What does it mean for us in the context of your last post? "Thank you for your appeal We confirm that we have now logged an online appeal with the parking operator The Parking operator will contact you directly regarding this appeal - please contact us again when you receive their response as the appeal will either be accepted at this stage or rejected. If the charge is rejected, the parking operator will issue a POPLA code(or details for the IAS),, which we will require as soon as possible as it is time restrictive and only valid once. You should receive a response from the parking operator within 35 days - contact us again if you don't. Please note you should ignore the automated email from VCS this is just to indicate to you that the appeal has been logged."

hoohoo

It means they have accepted your money, think they will get the ticket cancelled, and will pay your ticket if not, as long as you fulfill your end of the bargain by contacting when you get a rejection.

This should be good news for you.

BenefitMaster

hoohoo wrote: »

It means they have accepted your money, think they will get the ticket cancelled, and will pay your ticket if not, as long as you fulfill your end of the bargain by contacting when you get a rejection.

This should be good news for you.

I hope it works out for you.

Captain_Leaky

".......... won't actually be likely to be won at IAS appeal. "

So, what's the story on this? Are you saying that this is a complete waste of time, money and effort due to the robust approach of the particular company who has issued the PCN? Are you saying that VCS ae unbeatable and that I should just pay up and smile?

To Mr 'BenefitMaster'. You seem to be an angry kind of fellow with a personal axe to grind if you don't mind me saying so. Perhaps you might find a little peace if you left your personal grievance against PTAS off the board.

No matter the rights or wrongs, what really matters to those who post here for advice is that they get their matters resolved as quickly and as cheaply as possible. I'm sure they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in your personal spats with other companies.

If, on the other hand you have something constructive to add, such as commenting upon the success rate or otherwise of the likes of PTAS then fair enough, so long as it is backed up with some empirical facts. End of Rant!

Now, has anyone explored the nature of the contracts between the landowners and the parking enforcement companies? Have there been instances whereby the engagement of a parking enforcement company by the landowner has resulted in any negative financial effects upon the landowner's business or to those retailers who lease premises on the landowner's property? I was wondering if another 'Front' could be opened in the battle by boycotting retailers whose carparking facilities are policed by these unscrupulous guys.

bod1467

Can you locate that and start using it please?

Captain_Leaky

Just tried editing last post but lose formatting as soon as I repost. This board is too cluttered with ads etc.

BenefitMaster

Captain_Leaky wrote: »

To Mr 'BenefitMaster'. You seem to be an angry kind of fellow with a personal axe to grind if you don't mind me saying so. Perhaps you might find a little peace if you left your personal grievance against PTAS off the board. No matter the rights or wrongs, what really matters to those who post here for advice is that they get their matters resolved as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

I stand by my own record in that respect. 10:1 against Parking Companies, including the only known win against Devere in Bournemouth.

Feel free to have the last word, :beer: