Excel Parking fines

Money...MATTERS

There are two car parks on the same site adjacent to each other and with the same name one part of the site is run by Excel/ Vehicle Control Services Ltd the other part by a local authority.

The issuing authority of the permit advised that they contacted Excel/VCS LTD requesting they change the name as it is misleading and many people have been dealt the same fate, however they have not received a response.

Is 34 days to late to issue via ANPR?

Quentin

All info needed for appealing is in the one thread . The Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving. You need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

Coupon-mad

Is 34 days to late to issue via ANPR?

No, but it means they won't be able to rely on the POFA to hold the car's keeper liable.

You will know from when you read the NEWBIES sticky thread first, that PPCs do NOT *have to* follow the POFA.

What is the best way to challenge this fine?

Not sure what's not clear from the 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' sticky?

Money...MATTERS

As there is no option to say I was not the driver I have looked around MSE and found this to use on the myparkingcharge website:

I would use either #1 or #3 of these, to 'appeal' as keeper:

charge notice not received
- I did not receive the charge in the post
- I was not aware that I had incurred a charge notice
- the charge notice was not fixed to my vehicle

As the keeper, I did not receive a Notice to Keeper in the post IN TIME and there was no item purporting to be a 'Parking Charge Notice' on the vehicle either, so Vehicle Services Limited have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4. Since there is no lawful presumption that a keeper was the driver, and no evidence has been produced by Vehicle Services Limited to help the keeper identify the driver in order to pass the (late received) notice into them, Vehicle Control Services Limited have no cause of action so the driver will not be named.

I also wanted to add the IPC template:

Additionally I require the following information:

1. Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
3. Please provide photos of the signs that you say were on site, which you contend formed a contract with the driver.
4. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs, which would be a thinly-veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to involve a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause (e.g. if you do not fully comply with the IPC Code of Practice in terms of signage at this site, as seems likely based on my research) please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me. I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle.

I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,



THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE KEEPER GOES HERE. THE DRIVER IS NOT IDENTIFIED.

Please note that the VCS NTK does seem PoFA compliant apart from it being late (although they exempt themselves from the rules) would it be reasonable to put the whole thing or just the first or second part of the appeal?

Coupon-mad

Send whatever you like as long as you don't say who was driving. Whatever you send won't be read and won't get it cancelled anyway. These cases are won later, in court.

Money...MATTERS

Here's a 'court report' from 2017 from a winner on pepipoo (both forums have lots of such victories):

hxxp://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=112656&st=40&p=1296627&#entry1 296627

Sorry if i'm being naive or have missed something but isn't the above an example of a loss
at court and no further appeal or is it in progress. It was posted in Newbies.

Coupon-mad

No you are right, I added the wrong link so I've amended it:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=110606&st=40&gopid=1296619&#entry1296619

On MSE we have only seen two cases lost so far this year, where we assisted throughout.

Money...MATTERS

So in cases where the judge is suggesting that the RK has not done enough to find the driver how should the RK respond to this in court? Everyone that uses this site to fight back (which we must do as the system is ludicrous and unfair) is advised never to name the driver or imply whom it may be.

KeithP

Money...MATTERS wrote: »

So in cases where the judge is suggesting that the RK has not done enough to find the driver how should the RK respond to this in court?

Has a judge actually suggested that, or is it a hypothetical question?

Coupon-mad

Money...MATTERS wrote: »

So in cases where the judge is suggesting that the RK has not done enough to find the driver how should the RK respond to this in court?

We have never ever seen it in any case at all.

One would respond by waving the POPLA Annual Report 'Understanding Keeper Liability' section written by barrister and parking law expert (ex-PATAS Lead Adjudicator as well as having the POPLA role too) Henry Greenslade. He explains that there is NO adverse inference or lawful presumption that the keeper is the driver and nor do they have any liability or obligation to assist.

It's perfectly acceptable even to say the keeper knows who the driver was but is defending the case as keeper, to protect the (more vulnerable, less robust person?) driver from this vexatious pile of harassing twaddle. And this is their right, confirmed by the very existence of POFA.

Money...MATTERS

KeithP wrote: »

Has a judge actually suggested that, or is it a hypothetical question?

Please refer to one of my previous post in this thread with the link.