Liverpool business park PCN - We won!

Tinyteague

"freshly spanked and brandied up old chuffer!" Hahah, I like that.

Thanks for the response guys.

As for the POFA relevant to holding the keeper liable, that is relevant, as the driver was never disclosed, so any non compliance of the NTK with regards to the POFA help here? Unfortunately the NTK looks broadly compliant other than the parking/stopping ambiguity and the period of contravention (there is no period in a no stop violation?).

Umkomaas

In regard to the NtK and keeper liability, does the NtK fully meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of PoFA. If it does, then the potential is there for the keeper to be held liable. I must say that some Judges are like mustard on PoFA compliance, with a spectrum ranging right across to some who see it as somewhat superfluous. It's not right, but it's as it is.

Again the question as to whether 'stopping' and 'parking' can be conflated to provide a reasonable cause to extract keeper data from the DVLA under KADOE is a further highly debatable point (and beyond that whether it potentially drags the keeper into the mix under PoFA).

We don't think it should be allowed - but we don't make or interpret the law, so while we think we're right, we have no precedents backing up this position. We've seen small claims court cases being won on both sides of the argument, but small claims judgments are not precedents.

VCS did win a court of appeal case for Liverpool Business Park (name of Defendant escapes me, but someone will update), but I don't see them bandying this around at all.

Tinyteague

Sounds pretty bleak.

Also, the LBC stated I had 30 days. Is it in my best interest to send the rebuttal towards the end of that period (to give the SAR more time to come through and also to give us some breathing space for xmas)?

Does the fact that the NTK is stressed as hell about all this, where she was near full term pregnant when receiving the NTK, and has had the stress of all the harassing letters all while looking after a baby of 6 months?

Cheers.

Umkomaas

Use the 30 days to suit you. There's nothing to my knowledge which makes it more or less beneficial to respond to it early.

Just remembered the name of the Defendant - funny that when you try hard to remember, the brain freezes, then out of the blue the following day, up it pops without even thinking about it. Crutchley - that's the name.

Google VCS v Crutchley.

nosferatu1001

I dint thnk VCS actually bothered with Keeper liability?
Are you sure tehre isnt the old "we will presume you were the driver"? Line in there?

Post a cop of the NtK up if youre not sure

POFA is only concerned with Car Parking. Stopping on a Roadway cannot be classed as "parking" and isnt in a "car park" - so there can never be keeper liabiltiy
On a roadway fully accessible to the public, the RTA APPLY WITHOUT ANY QUESTION - meaning there is statutory control and the land CANNOT be relvant land. SO again, no possi bility of keeper liability.

Tinyteague

That last paragraph you posted nosferatu sounds like they ought to never win a case against the keeper.

I just received their SAR pack through. They didn't acknowledge my data rectification request. They had to cut a portion out of the sent CCTV footage because other traffic had passed during that time and apparently they couldn't show their face.

Looks like they don't presume the driver but go after the keeper, last paragraph of the NTK:

"Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice, the amount of the unpaid Parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from you, the Keeper, any unpaid balance of the Parking Charge."

Another thing I noticed whilst digging out the original appeal email is that all appeal correspondence was sent by "Excel Parking Services Ltd", though there is no sign of the sender in the SAR set.

This is the NTK (two pages), they need http:// in front of them:

i65.tinypic.com/ddnitz.png

i64.tinypic.com/35i9b1l.png

Castle

Tinyteague wrote: »

Hi,

Just looking for a bit of advice please, I have received a PCN (NTK) for a no stopping contravention at the above site. Although the back story probably is not important, the driver accidentally found themselves driving down this road and had to turn in a off-road, which is where they got photographed for 34 seconds.

Well this is what one driver did when he "stopped" for 32 seconds at the same location:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

Tinyteague

Well the LBC rebuttal letter was sent over 7 weeks ago, and today a claim form was received.

In the LBC rebuttal I asked for information on the situation, including location on a map of alleged event taking place, all photo and correspondence, clarification of whether they're chasing the defendant on contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass etc.

Anyway, no reply was received. This I assume is in violation of the PAP? I mean some of those answers would be beneficial in constructing the defence.

Redx

it may well be , so send VCS a SAR by email tonight, to their DPO

then do the AOS online by logging in to the MCOL site

post your DATE OF ISSUE on the N1 form, plus the POC and the charges breakdown, minus any personal info - below

then start drafting your defence by reading a few

Coupon-mad

Castle wrote: »

Well this is what one driver did when he "stopped" for 32 seconds at the same location:-
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/liverpool-business-park-motorist-wins.html

Do we have to read that awful blog? I am guessing PP must be embarrassed.