Myparkingcharge.co.uk

beamerguy

HO87 wrote: »

The word "ignorant" was not used perjoratively as far as motorists are concerned but as a simple description. However, the other bodies you have set out above give the impression of being wilfully ignorant. No one wants to grasp this nettle because the establishment, sucked in by the slick, snake oil peddling of PPC fellow-travellers, are only now realising that they have allowed a monster to evolve that they cannot now control. It involves far too much money.

As far as May is concerned I doubt she actually knows anything especially when it comes to PPC World. She's far to busy polishing her red shoes and polishing up her faux Home Counties accent. As for "love" BG you stand a far greater chance than May ever would. If she and I were the only humans left on the planet I can assure you the human race would be doomed to extinction.

She does know, many many people have written to her

OH, did not know you cared about BG like that, better hide that from her indoors :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

Neither VCS nor Excel claim to adhere to POFA (until they get to court)

But HO87, the big difference now is, they DO.

VCS/Excel are following these half-baked NTDs with a NTK within 5 - 20 days, which IS worded under the POFA. They've changed their NTK wording around December, which is why I say the NTD has to be considered a non-compliant NTD and that VCS/Excel have breached the POFA and the KADOE by getting the data too early.

HO87

@ C-M

I am afraid I do not agree - even if I was unaware of the change of procedure/wording as far as their NtK's are concerned.

In the past we have hobbled ourselves as a result of using terms like non-compliant notices and these circumstances are the best example of it. POFA sets out a set of requirements for a notice to be relied upon as a Notice to Driver for the purposes of.... If a document fails to meet those requirements then it is by definition not - and indeed cannot be - a NtD for the purposes of the Act.

Many PPC's use notices which attempt to comply with the Act - even if they succeed in omitting some of the detail - and they are issued at the appropriate time (strictly speaking, this doesn't make them any more NtD's than this). However, this "thing" makes not even a vague attempt to comply with POFA and as far as I can see the only aspect of the Act it appears to conform to is that it was issued before the vehicle left the relevant land.

From a legal point of view this "thing" is no different from a flyer for a hand car wash shoved under the wiper in a store car park. It certainly isn't a NtD. As far as I can see the only reason why a NtD/NtK timeline is being constructed at all is because this "thing" occupies the slot normally occupied by a NtD. But that doesn't make it a NtD either - you can't put lipstick on a pig.

The logic follows that if there has been no NtD then a NtK must be given within 14 days. I don't really see a way around that.

To sum up, I do not think that VCS/Excel are attempting to get data early by cutting short the 28 day requirement following the issue of a NtD. Rather I believe that what they are doing is attempting to insert an additional step in the 14-day NtK process by giving notice of the issue of a NtK. I do not believe any argument put forward to DVLA alleging "early access" is going to succeed.

This goes back to the points I made earlier, predictably trashed by BG, about the underlying purpose for this "thing". I suspect that it is intended as a means of obtaining potentially useful information they can use to infer keeper liability - and all of the arguments (such as they were) advanced by BG as to why this wouldn't work are irrelevant. It is simply another tool PPC's will use to confound and intimidate the ignorant.

Coupon-mad

I suspect that it is intended as a means of obtaining potentially useful information they can use to infer keeper liability

And a way of getting data from the horse's mouth BEFORE that data is confirmed by the DVLA? So there can be no data misuse argument because VCS can say 'look, he contacted us voluntarily first and gave us this data...'

Stinks doesn't it. Circumventing the POFA again. This was never the intention of a paragraph 9 version PCN, that was only added to the POFA Bill when the PPCs bleated that it wasn't fair that they 'had to' apply a windscreen PCN first...what about ANPR cases, they screeched...so the Bill was adapted to create a second type of PCN, a postal one.

And here we have a hybrid 'in between' model as another way to gain data and an advantage.

HO87

Absolutely.

It is probably the most openly cynical approach I have seen to date - that will have all the appearance of being reasonable and helpful. Until eventually the powers that be catch on.

I believe the approach to these is to "ignore". The problem is that people are absolutely bound to have taken a peek before they post on the forum.

This is probably the result of VCS/Excel being ripped up by various DDJ's for failing to abide by POFA on the one hand whilst simultaneously trying to claim they do on the other.

yotmon

So, if the NTD isn't a NTD, are they issuing a NTK with 14 days as a way of complying under pofa. Or are they just issuing the NTK prior to the 28 days as required to allow the driver to pay, prior to gaining keeper details. Sorry, but getting a bit confused......

Coupon-mad

As HO87 says, it's a cynical approach to fish for data and panicked payments from driver victims early.

Yet pretending 'this is not a NTD'...ahem...

HO87

yotmon wrote: »

So, if the NTD isn't a NTD, are they issuing a NTK with 14 days as a way of complying under pofa. Or are they just issuing the NTK prior to the 28 days as required to allow the driver to pay, prior to gaining keeper details. Sorry, but getting a bit confused......

I'm not sure that this will necessarily clear things up. To be a NtD within the meaning of POFA a "windscreen ticket" (for the want of a better expression) must meet all of the requirements set out in para. 7. If the "windscreen ticket" doesn't meet those requirements then it isn't a NtD.

Therefore if a NtD hasn't been given (it is therefore only a "windscreen ticket") and it is the intention of the PPC to be able to invoke keeper liability then the clock is ticking on them giving a NtK within 14 days.

In order for the PPC to give a NtK between Day 29 and Day 56 then a fully compliant NtD must have been given at the time. If only a "windscreen ticket" was given then the PPC must give a compliant NtK within 14 days.

It seems that VCS/Excel are issuing what purport to be compliant NtK's within the 14 days (it seems that some have slipped through after that time limit).

In brief, it appears that they are reverting to the 14-day limit as if all tickets were issued as a result of ANPR captures.

If they intend to use the ANPR/no NtD route then they can apply to DVLA before 14 days and that is what it appears they're doing.

I believe that the mistake that was being made was treating the "windscreen ticket" as if it was a NtD (it can't be - it doesn't meet the requirements) and running the "Appeal at Day 25/26" route.

The problem is that this particular "windscreen ticket" is so devoid of detail that people who receive them will do exactly what VCS/Excel want them to do and go on line and look the detail - and probably appeal at that point too. This is nothing but a cynical ploy to hoodwink people into divulging details so that they don't then have to comply in the least with POFA because they are likely to have the driver's details.

twhitehousescat

if s person gets a ticket in his car and goes online , even makes an appeal , based on the "person" having enough details , this must be classed as a very bad NTD , so bad that it fails pofa , also as the NTK arrives on day 10-14 and a appeal is in the system that again is a huge failure

HO87

twhitehousescat wrote: »

if s person gets a ticket in his car and goes online , even makes an appeal , based on the "person" having enough details , this must be classed as a very bad NTD , so bad that it fails pofa , also as the NTK arrives on day 10-14 and a appeal is in the system that again is a huge failure

Exactly.

We would make things easier for ourselves (I admit I have fallen into the same habit) by calling a spade a spade. As I've posted above a windscreen ticket that doesn't meet the requirements isn't a "bad NtD" it is a windscreen ticket. In order to be called a NtD it must comply with POFA so there cannot therefore be such a thing as a "bad NtD". There can only be a NtD (meaning that its fully compliant) or a windscreen ticket (meaning that it is non-compliant).