Private parking ticket - 'time issued' incorrect on ticket

zoglog

Hi there

I recently received a private parking ticket from Vehicle Control Services Ltd - a private company who seem to issue a ticket at any given opportunity. I'd be happy to ignore them since there were no road markings to suggest no parking was allowed and, well, they're a private company. However, there are a few guys from my office who have ignored 3-4 tickets from them recently and have had a court summons letter and ending up settling outside of court.

It was a Friday night after work when I received the ticket. I left the office car park at around 19:50 (I have proof of this). The ticket states that my car was seen at 19:46 and the ticket was issued at 19:56. The place I was parked was no more than a minutes drive from my work so it is possible that the ticket was issued at this time. What I'm wondering, though, is does the warden HAVE to allow a certain amount of time before he can issue a ticket? If so then surely he doesn't have a leg to stand on if I have proof that I hadn't left the office until after he states he'd seen the car.

I guess I just want to know where I stand - should I appeal and show proof that I was still at work when I was 'seen'. Do I ignore it all together - if so what is my course of action in the event of a court summons? (I'm guessing unlikely since it's only one ticket and not several).

Any help appreciated.

Thanks

pappa_golf

why settle out of court ,!!!


VCS would be on sticky wickets on 90% of there cases in court and drop out


do you want to fight them or pay up?

Coupon-mad

What I'm wondering, though, is does the warden HAVE to allow a certain amount of time before he can issue a ticket? If so then surely he doesn't have a leg to stand on if I have proof that I hadn't left the office until after he states he'd seen the car.

It's not a warden. This is a dodgy private firm with employees whose main purpose is to issue 'PCNs' on any old excuse for the profit of the firm. There is no 'have to' in terms of rules because this is an IPC member and the IPC and IAS are on one side. VCS' side.

Don't appeal by saying who parked the car. Please don't write about what happened. Just use the first appeal in the NEWBIEs thread written for IPC cases. They will not cancel, there is little chance of it achieving that but it makes you look reasonable and shows VCS you are getting forum advice and are not just a clueless victim.

Also read other recent VCS threads here by searching for them.

You are right that a single PCN is highly unlikely to feature in VCS' rare forays into small claims so no point worrying but do keep every letter just in case, for six years.

zoglog

Thanks for the reply both.

I've had a read through the newbie's thread but couldn't find anything relating to my scenario - the time on the ticket that he claims to have spotted my car is incorrect. I have proof that I left my work's office at 19:52 and the ticket states my car was spotted at 19:46 and ticketed at 19:56. If I were to simply appeal based on that, with evidence, how likely is it that the ticket will be squashed?

Thanks

Fruitcake

zoglog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply both.

I've had a read through the newbie's thread but couldn't find anything relating to my scenario - the time on the ticket that he claims to have spotted my car is incorrect. I have proof that I left my work's office at 19:52 and the ticket states my car was spotted at 19:46 and ticketed at 19:56. If I were to simply appeal based on that, with evidence, how likely is it that the ticket will be squashed?

Thanks

You need to look again then send the IPC template questionnaire exactly as it is. You won't win whatever you put in your appeal as IPC members will ignore it.
Add the point that the event didn't happen as your car was not there at the time the ticket was issued and you are prepared to prove it in court, but do not reveal who was driving under any circumstances.


When the PPC reject it, you have to decide whether to ignore for six years or do an IAS appeal to a kangaroo court and then ignore for six years.

pappa_golf

zoglog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply both.

I've had a read through the newbie's thread but couldn't find anything relating to my scenario - the time on the ticket that he claims to have spotted my car is incorrect. I have proof that I left my work's office at 19:52 and the ticket states my car was spotted at 19:46 and ticketed at 19:56. If I were to simply appeal based on that, with evidence, how likely is it that the ticket will be squashed?

Thanks

it wouldn't , however VCS would be stupid to pursue this if you had credible evidence that the timing was wrong and you were willing to stand in court and state this


phone logs from work , security sign out etc ,

The_Deep

Are you suggesting that the PPC are lying about timing? They would never do that ... would they?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

Coupon-mad

zoglog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply both.

I've had a read through the newbie's thread but couldn't find anything relating to my scenario - the time on the ticket that he claims to have spotted my car is incorrect. I have proof that I left my work's office at 19:52 and the ticket states my car was spotted at 19:46 and ticketed at 19:56. If I were to simply appeal based on that, with evidence, how likely is it that the ticket will be squashed?

ZERO likelihood which is why a template will do, the details do not matter. But you could add that to the IPC appeal template if you wish. Won't hurt as long as you DO NOT say:

I left my work's office at 19:52 and the ticket states my car was spotted at 19:46 and ticketed at 19:56.

You would be saying 'I was an occupant of the car and...' in order to avoid blabbing about who was driving.

The_Deep

I really do not see the significance of not admitting that the RK was a passenger, I am frequently such. It adds weight if you say, "neither the driver nor I saw the signs ...".

Herzlos

But you could phrase it that "The car was in a completely different location at the time of the event. I have evidence to confirm this".

It sounds like they saw the car at 19:56 but have been told to wait 10 minutes as per the code of conduct, so they've claimed to have spotted it at 19:46. Probably complete with timestamp altered photo.