Late NTK (ANPR) from VCS/Excel (IPC)

[Deleted User]

Evening guys,

I've been searching around for threads of similar circumstance but unfortunately can't find any which involve IPC members.

So I, as the registered keeper, was sent an ANPR NTK 56 days after the alleged offence (no windscreen ticket). I can't even remember who was driving it back then. I know that under POFA if they provide within 14/15 days then the keeper (myself) can be liable, but obviously with it being 56, this isn't so.

I've seen a number of threads calling this the 'golden ticket', and seemingly POPLA seem to uphold there CoP on it with regards to it being late. HOWEVER unfortunately I had to deal with VCS who use IPC/IAS. I used the NEWBIES thread response word for word, and didn't state the driver, but IAS rejected my appeal, supporting VCSs argument that they haven't relied on POFA and that under Elliot v Loake (1982) the keeper can be deemed to be the driver. Looking into that case it seems laughable they are trying to draw parallels, it was a criminal case where there was amble evidence the keeper was driving. They argue that I need to prove I wasn't driving, how on earth can anyone prove they WEREN'T somewhere 56 days ago. Note that IPC CoP Section 5.1(m) requires a postal NTKs to "be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking".

Anyway, since the IAS verdict I have had 3 letters from VCS with the usual, debt collectors/court action/death threats. Can anyone in the know please let me know how I should proceed with this? still ignore? Also is there any fightback to this? surely it breaches KADOE and warrants a DVLA complaint.
Any help would be great.

Redx

all detailed in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread (for any formal LBC or an MCOL from Northampton CCBC)

if these are mere debt collector letters, post #4 applies , until post #2 applies

saves us typing it all out, or copying and pasting from that thread into your thread

Umkomaas

but IAS rejected my appeal, supporting VCSs argument that they haven't relied on POFA and that under Elliot v Loake (1982) the keeper can be deemed to be the driver. Looking into that case it seems laughable they are trying to draw parallels, it was a criminal case where there was amble evidence the keeper was driving.

Shocking - especially as this has been debunked so many times by Judges in private parking cases, and even more so that the IAS rationale is delivered by either a barrister or a solicitor.

surely it breaches KADOE

Help us - where does it breach KADOE?

Can anyone in the know please let me know how I should proceed with this? still ignore?

Ride it out for 6 years or defend a court claim - whichever comes first.

Also is there any fightback to this?

Write to your MP and alert him/her to this stuff.

twhitehousescat

the first thing

is this vcs or is it excel , as they are different companies

although owned by the same owner , they get easily confused and often have other companies signage on display

[Deleted User]

Thanks guys,

I've read NEWBIES but couldn't find anything when IPC reject the appeal but i'll give it another look, cheers Redx.

surely it breaches KADOE

I was under the impression that for VCS to use KADOE they must commit to the provisions of POFA which they're not. How can VCS be adhering to POFA but then completely negate the act when trying to persue me. Maybe i'm wrong on this.

is this vcs or is it excel , as they are different companies

VCS have been the guys pestering me. I've never actually been to the place they claim I parked so I'm not sure whether the signs at that place do indeed state VCS or Excel.

Umkomaas

I was under the impression that for VCS to use KADOE they must commit to the provisions of POFA which they're not. How can VCS be adhering to POFA but then completely negate the act when trying to persue me. Maybe i'm wrong on this.

Have you read KADOE to check?

The only requirement to adhere to PoFA is for PPCs to be able to pursue keeper liability.

Redx

once the appeal processes are rejected it moves into no mans land (debt collector land , post #4)

it moves out of debt collector land (post #4) into LBC and/or MCOL land (post #2) if they initiate contact within 6 years

POFA2012 is not mandatory, and a lot of companies do not bother with POFA2012

AFAIK the KADOE contract demands thay be in an AOS system, of which there are currently 2, so VCS are in the IPC and can only enforce against a keeper in their own name and where there are VCS signs (no no excel signs, no excel paperwork etc)

POFA compliance helps them to enforce against a keeper, non-compliance means they fall back to pursuit of the driver


signage plays a crucial role in the contract, so I would advise you to get pictures on the signage by any means necessary

an SAR to VCS may produce pics of signs, contracts, paperwork etc

be pro-active , read the 2018 GDPR FIGHTBACK thread

Coupon-mad

I was under the impression that for VCS to use KADOE they must commit to the provisions of POFA

Wrong, forget that. they are allowed to operate on a non POFA basis, but cannot rely on Elliot v Loake except as a figment of their and the IPC/IAS imagination.

You should NEVER have tried IAS; the NEWBIES thread does tell you that.

It's considered a kangaroo court and is run by the same people as were Directors of Gladstones Solicitors (who start claims against victims) and the IPC also run the IAS as well, so the two are in each other's pockets (sloshing around with ludicrous amounts of drivers' money) and completely unreliable as an ADR, due to the extreme conflict of interests.

DO NOT PAY - ELLIOT V LOAKE WILL NOT STAND UP IN COURT IF ARGUED AGAINST.

Do as Umkomaas said:

Write to your MP and alert him/her to this stuff.

...and include this line which I think we should put in EVERY complaint to MPs, to cast doubt in their mind if nothing else (we NEED to start playing dirty):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75001291#Comment_75001291

Please include that suggested sentence by waamo, in your MP complaint. After all, even Hurley himself has a chequered past, not just the PPCs:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5291758/Solicitor-investigated-over-claims-he-tried-to-silence-murder-witness.html

IMHO I have found all of them to be a horribly greedy, pushy and aggressive group of people (anyone associated with PPCs, parking, appeals). Words like 'greedy' and worse, were used in Parliament so I am not alone in this opinion and I single out no firms.

The parking industry in general appears to attract a certain type, as we've seen over the years, which is hardly surprising, as anyone with any care for their fellow man, could not uphold and think what PPCs do to people is actually OK.

[Deleted User]

You should NEVER have tried IAS; the NEWBIES thread does tell you that.

I made the error of thinking this case was such a clear contradiction of their own CoP that even the IPC/IAS couldn't condone VCS, this was my mistake.

I assumed the answer would be to wait it out for a court claim. I just wasn't sure if i was missing something, with VCS seemingly so convinced that I'm liable. I really can't see a court siding with them on the keeper liability point alone. The 14 days seems to be in place because thats deemed a reasonable amount of time to remember who was behind the wheel at that time. Am I, as keeper, therefore expected to know (and prove) who was driving my car at all times in the past 6 years, or be guilty on someone else's behalf if not - thats surely not right.

I will be writing to my MP - how the IPC/Gladstone's is able to operate as they do is beyond me.


But anyway, thanks for the quick responses guys - I see most of you helping people on tons of threads. You're all legends. Any updates, I'll let you know.

Umkomaas

I will be writing to my MP - how the IPC/Gladstone's is able to operate as they do is beyond me.

You do know that the founders of the IPC (Hurley/Davies) are the leading lights in Gladstones. They've done a bit of a soft shoe shuffle to blur the lines, but they're wallowing in the same trough, right up to their personal and corporate necks.

'Conflict of interest' knows few equals.

Coupon-mad

An example of a complaint to an MP is in post #18 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5851168/es-parking-ias

HTH