Vehicle Control Services-'walk-off'

sineapse

Hi there,

Was wondering if you could offer some advice for a case I'm looking into on behalf of a friend. I've won a POPLA appeal against Highview before so I hope I have a bit of an understanding about the process.

Background:

Received a NTK dates 8th April for an alleged 'walk-off' from a car park controlled by the above on 25th Feb. No PCN issued at scene as stated 'witnessed driver returned to site and drove off before able to issue notice". Included a copy of the PCN and no photo evidence.

Sent a reply stating points (no admission of being the driver):

1. Onus is on them to prove the driver was not a legitimate customer
2. Scribbled out and wrote over one of the letters in the VRM, contended this was either wrong VRM recorded initially or amended at a later date (no initialling or dating of the change)
3. Does not meet POFA requirements para 9 and subpara 4 and 5 on issuing NTK within 14 days (42 days had passed)
4. No GPEOL
5. Failed to provide evidence of proprietary interest in land.
6. No contract


Reply rejected on:

1. Patrol officer makes statement that driver left site. States that photographic evidence of vehicle being parked on site is included in letter (not attached!!)
2. PoFa abandoned argument, reasonable assumption Keeper is Driver
3. Cites the 2015 Parking Eye vs Beavis appeal that shows the charge is reasonable.
4.Contract formed based on duty of motorist to read signage

No reply to my points 1, 2, 5.

Personally, I think this is outrageous. There is no evidence provided that the vehicle was ever parked there and if the driver was indeed parked there that the driver was not a legitimate customer. Forty-two days elapsed from the time of the alleged breach of conditions to the NTK being sent out.

The only issue is that they have included IAS appeal codes. I understand how useless IAS are.

Any advice gratefully appreciated.

Northlakes

I think this OP needs to go into deep ignore mode unless VCS are stupid enough to send court papers.

Redx

its either appeal to the IAS within 21 days or ignore until or unless an LBC or MCOL is issued within the next 6 years (or pay up which we dont advocate on here)

sineapse

Redx wrote: »

its either appeal to the IAS within 21 days or ignore until or unless an LBC or MCOL is issued within the next 6 years (or pay up which we dont advocate on here)

Hmm. It's a difficult one. Still running around a 20% success rate with IAS?

Umkomaas

You might want to read and acquaint yourself with this court case.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

VCS (and their solicitor) have been 'here' before and there's no excuse for them not learning their lesson from Judge McIlwaine. They came off worse than second best.

Useful exhibit for you should they be daft enough to try again. I'm sure Ms Rachel Coates won't be too keen to represent them!

sineapse

Umkomaas wrote: »

You might want to read and acquaint yourself with this court case.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

VCS (and their solicitor) have been 'here' before and there's no excuse for them not learning their lesson from Judge McIlwaine. They came off worse than second best.

Useful exhibit for you should they be daft enough to try again. I'm sure Ms Rachel Coates won't be too keen to represent them!

Yes, I had a read of that earlier but completely missed the fact that it was VCS!

The summary of that was that was:


-No countersigning of amendments to contracts, unclear when this occurred

-Failure of parking attendant to be present is 'irksome but not fatal' to the case.

-Mitigation of loss: Duty of parking attendant to warn driver of risk of penalty on leaving site, duty of claimant

-Right to issue proceedings in PPC in their own right must be explicitly stated in contract between PPC and client. No implied right is acceptable

Guys_Dad

This is a MUST appeal to IAS on the 14 day point. And on that point alone.

Non--compliant with POFA.

Why? To help you and others with a complete discredit of IAS for future - as if any other was needed. We all know they are liable to reject all the standard appeal points, so don't create a "forum appeal" as such.

A rejection simply stating that they are assuming that you were the driver and ignoring Keeper Liability not cluttered with other stuff is priceless.

The appeal is simply "I believe that on the day in question I was not the driver as I was elsewhere that day and a family member used the car. If necessary, witnesses could be produced in court. As your NtK did not comply with POFA2012, Keeper liability does not apply and on that point alone, as the PPC failed to follow the requirements of the legislation, I request that the appeal is upheld"

Words to that effect but not a cut and paste from here in case they are watching.

sineapse

Guys_Dad wrote: »

This is a MUST appeal to IAS on the 14 day point. And on that point alone.

Non--compliant with POFA.

Why? To help you and others with a complete discredit of IAS for future - as if any other was needed. We all know they are liable to reject all the standard appeal points, so don't create a "forum appeal" as such.

A rejection simply stating that they are assuming that you were the driver and ignoring Keeper Liability not cluttered with other stuff is priceless.

The appeal is simply "I believe that on the day in question I was not the driver as I was elsewhere that day and a family member used the car. If necessary, witnesses could be produced in court. As your NtK did not comply with POFA2012, Keeper liability does not apply and on that point alone, as the PPC failed to follow the requirements of the legislation, I request that the appeal is upheld"

Words to that effect but not a cut and paste from here in case they are watching.

Thanks GuysDad.

Would you be able to expand on this a little further? The concept of 'abandoning POFA' is new to me and there seems to possibly conflicting information on some other pepipoo threads.

Am I right in thinking that because the driver is not named and POFA is not involved, the onus is on them to prove who the driver is as keeper liability is not invoked? What to their argument of 'reasonable assumption' that the keeper was the driver?

Edit: Interesting. Have read the IPCs guidelines.
7. Applying for keeper details where keeper liability is not sought.
7.3 Where you have not complied with the terms of PoFA, you must not infer that keeper liability exists.

I am mindful of an IAC decision where the adjudicator stated that there was no legal requirement for the PPC to follow the IPC guidance however!!

sineapse

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/important-popla-ruling-non-pofa-2012.html

Found this interesting decision by POPLA. Is it worth referencing this in the appeal to IAS?

The_Deep

Does any of the paperwork account for v.a.t.? It should.

Met base their claim on the fact that the amount is a contractual charge, and must include v.a.t.

Therefore, if they have not accounted for it, they cannot claim that the amount demanded is a contractual charge, that might be tax evasion. It must therefore be damages for breach of contract or, if they own the land, trespass.

These vat implications could very well be their undoing in court, but the IAS will almost certainly ignore them at appeal as too difficult. In slower time ask them for a vat invoice and if they demur shop them to the tax evasion hot line.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ng-tax-evasion

More reading here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...5437&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...7925&highlight=

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...3796&highlight=

Guys_Dad

Sorry - been away for holiday.

My point is that the ntk was served outside the 14 day window. By doing that, the PPC can not pursue the RK.

If the RK states that they were not the driver at the time and states they have witnesses only a crooked assessor could come down in favour of a PPC who failed to follow POFA timescales.