NTK contains no discount info

Coupon-mad

The IPC will not assist you but jump through the hoops.

And please write to your MP and Trading Standards now.

Reue

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The IPC will not assist you but jump through the hoops.

Reply from Mr Dunford:

[FONT=&quot]I am not aware that DVLA has banned this process but there is no legal requirement for the keeper to name the driver upon appeal. As the appeals process is a matter for the Accredited Trade Associations to manage, I have raised this with the International Parking Community for their comments.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Once I have received a response, I will provide a reply to yourself.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

The DVLA and BPA jointly wrote to all parking companies before the IPC even existed, reminding them that certain conduct was a serious breach. One was about misleading an appellant that the driver's name/address was a requirement of any appeal.

This email in question was from 2012/2013 I think (could have been earlier, not later) and on the NoToMob website, but I can't find it now.

Reue

Another update from the DVLA:

[FONT=&quot] have raised this matter with the IPC who have responded as follows...[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“if the matter is a windscreen ticket then the driver has already been offered the ability to appeal (21 days from the notice to driver) and the timeframe of 21 days has expired. Therefore, the operator is entitled not to entertain an appeal unless there is extenuating circumstances for the appeal being out of time. However, if the matter is an ANPR ticket then the operator is bound to deal with an appeal under our Code as the 21 days for appeal start at the first day the NTK is sent to the keeper.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That being the case the operator has confirmed that the template is an old template which has been used in error. They have now deleted the old templates from their system to ensure the mistake cannot happen again. However, they would like to know details of the ticket so they can examine what prejudice, if any has been made to the keeper. Also they may be able to identify the operative who has used the old template and provide them with some more training. “[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Without understanding whether the original notice was issued to the vehicle or by post, the IPC cannot conclude their investigations. However, the company have taken steps to ensure that the old template is no longer available. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At this time, I cannot offer any further information in regards to this matter.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Found the DVLA email which went to Siross, a poster here, in Jan 2014, from Steve Clark at the DVLA.

Post #108 and it is clear that the DVLA agree that this conduct was not allowed in 2014, so are they saying they've watered it down in 2017 and/or allowed the IPC to operate under less robust rules (who would have thought...?):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64401866#Comment_64401866

''this practice should not be occurring (as we already knew)''

''• Appearing to indicate that the issue of a POPLA Code is conditional on driver details being supplied “

I am hoping that this type of incident will not be occurring any more.

I wish to thank you of bringing this matter to the DVLA’s attention and ultimately, the BPA’s.

If you do encounter any further issues such as this, please do not hesitate to contact myself.''

Well 'this type of incident' IS clearly now occurring in the IPC, and the effect is exactly the same - in this case, 'appearing to indicate that {an appeal} is conditional on driver details being supplied '.

I would reply to the DVLA and say that the complaint was not about whether the keeper's appeal was out of time (of course it wasn't, the NTK is the first time a keeper is likely to hear about a scam PCN and the keeper appealed straight away). The IPC have tried to skew this away from the fact that their operator was saying that driver's details are a requirement of appeal, which the DVLA stamped on only in 2015 and David Dunford will be well aware of the background:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/how-independent-parking-committee.html

''A series of documents released under FoI show that the Independent Parking Committee never had any intention of letting keepers appeal. The full documents can be seen by requesting from the DVLA a copy of all documents released under FOIR3618 and make interesting reading.''

''Following pressure from the DVLA and consumers, the code of practice was changed. Here is the (rather muddled) requirement for keeper appeals from the Code of Practice 1.3''.

Reue

I shall send that back to Mr Dunford.

Should I also pass on the details of this PCN (as he has requested) so it can be passed to the IPC "[FONT=&quot] However, they would like to know details of the ticket so they can examine what prejudice, if any has been made to the keeper. Also they may be able to identify the operative who has used the old template and provide them with some more training."

?
[/FONT]

Umkomaas

If it's been requested by the DVLA, then do so. Don't give them any excuse to fob you off by you not complying with their request.

Reue

Umkomaas wrote: »

If it's been requested by the DVLA, then do so. Don't give them any excuse to fob you off by you not complying with their request.

My understanding though was that I shouldnt appeal to the IPC anyway because all appeals loose by default anyway?

I assume from Coupon-mad's replies that the intention was never to appeal but just to raise it as a complaint with the DVLA that their appeals process is impossible for a registered keeper to comply with.

Reue

A question response from the DVLA:

[FONT=&quot]Thank you for your further email however without understanding the full circumstances of the situation, I cannot assist any further with this. I have already requested these details from yourself but you have not been able to provide these. I can only suggest that you raise your concerns directly with the IPC as it is their responsibility to ensure compliance with the Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I should also mention that DVLA is not involved in the appeals process or dictating what should be contained in the appeals process, this is for the IPC to determine but the appeals process should be fair and only request information from the appellant which it is legally allowed to do so.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you are able to provide any further detail, I will gladly provide this to the IPC to allow them to continue their investigations.[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

OK, provide further detail including the things I wrote/links I gave you, in the post yesterday. Ask DD to liaise with the IPC to investigate why UKCPM are saying a driver's details are required in any appeal - that is NOT the case.

Also add that you notice that UKCPM were claiming to be members of the Independent Parking Committee in their 'old' letter footer, which they are not. Claiming to be a member of a stated body (expressed to be their 'Trade Body') when they are not is not dissimilar to the criminal charges brought against NGPM last month:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/new-generation-parking-management-found.html

Throw ALL of the above to Mr Dunford including a copy of the PCN and including everything from my previous post as well. The IPC are twisting the appeals process away from the level held to be acceptable by the DVLA in 2014.