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

Redx

also point them at the Sir Greg Knight bill going through parliament


https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html


its next stage is on the 25th

[Deleted User]

Afternoon guys,

Hope you're all well. Apologies If I've missed the existence of a similar thread to this but I've scoured MSE forums everywhere, I'm just looking for a bit of advice from the experts!

To set the scene I received a postal ANPR NTK 153 days after the apparent contravention of parking 2 and a half hours in a 2hr max stay car park. With it being delivered a tad over the 14 days permitted, they didn't rely on POFA, they didn't have any proof of who was driving it and so obviously i told them where to shove it - didn't tell them who was driving, as to be honest I'm not even sure myself.

Anyway fast forward a month or so and were now at the IAS (i know i shouldn't of even entertained this 'independent' appeal but i thought it was one of those clear cut cases). Here they relied on Elliot v Loake for keeper liability I refuted this but as you can guess IAS upheld the appeal.

SO now, present day, a court date has been set and we're here writing a witness statement. Now VCS's WS is pretty poor, it's all templated and the contract agreement submitted as an exhibit between the landowner and VCS is out of date by 5 years. VCS have decided against the argument of Elliot v Loake and instead gone for Law of Agency, referring to Excel V Nick Jennings. Now I've refuted this case with Excel V Anthony Smith where the circuit judge completely calls BS on this, I've also referred to VCS v Sarah Quayle that also contradicts Jennings. (all cases on parking prankster site)

Thing is, I can't find too much on the Jennings case, does anybody know of any other cases on this? Preferably ones which actually reference Jennings. I'm sure since 2017 Excel and VCS must have been using Jennings as case law against 100s of people yet the judgement makes noooo sense what so ever.

Now I've got a lot more points on my WS but I'm going to attempt to argue unreasonable behaviour to the judge so I'd love to get as much on them as possible. So my other query is regarding DVLA data. SO according to the DVLAs 'release of information from the DVLAs registers' document, basically a parking firm must stick to the IPCs code of practice, and the IPC must make sure the firms adhere to the codes of practice otherwise the DVLA shouldn't release keeper info. The code of practice states ANPR postal PCNS must be sent within 14 days, and obviously VCS didn't adhere to this. Now where can i go with this? can i say this is breach of data protection at all? How do I make a point about this on the statement?

Any help would be great!

Coupon-mad

SO now, present day, a court date has been set and we're here writing a witness statement. Now VCS's WS is pretty poor, it's all templated and the contract agreement submitted as an exhibit between the landowner and VCS is out of date by 5 years. VCS have decided against the argument of Elliot v Loake and instead gone for Law of Agency, referring to Excel V Nick Jennings. Now I've refuted this case with Excel V Anthony Smith where the circuit judge completely calls BS on this, I've also referred to VCS v Sarah Quayle that also contradicts Jennings. (all cases on parking prankster site)

Good. :T

You should find mention of Jennings in other threads by searching the forum.

Now I've got a lot more points on my WS but I'm going to attempt to argue unreasonable behaviour to the judge so I'd love to get as much on them as possible.

Even better!

The code of practice states ANPR postal PCNS must be sent within 14 days,

I doubt that. The IPC wouldn't say that, EXCEPT regarding keeper liability.

Postal PCNs can be sent later but it just mean the PPC can't rely on keeper liability.

[Deleted User]

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks for the response!
I may be getting this wrong but on the IPC code of practice page 17.
theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf
5.1 m states:
"The Notice to the Keeper must; Be given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking".
I can't see anywhere that states this only applied to keeper liability.
Im therefore under the impression that unless they don't at least send it with 14+1 days, they breach the code?

Umkomaas

If the NtK isn’t sent within the PoFA prescribed timescale, Keeper Liability cannot apply. It does not invalidate the parking charge.

I don’t see the argument for a breach of the IPC Code of Practice.

[Deleted User]

POFA timescales and the case law mentioned is the base of my argument, but if I want to make the case this was an unreasonable I'm looking at everything.
Am i missing something here? The code of practice requires ALL ANPR postal NTKs to be sent within 14 days. The extract above is word for word, I'm failing to figure out why, if they send it 150+ days after, it isn't a breach?

Umkomaas

If you think it’s a breach, then you’d need to take that up with the IPC - but be aware that they are there to protect their members, not motorists.

If the PPC are not pursuing keeper liability, they can issue the charge any time up to 6 months following the ‘contravention’.

KeithP

BenjaminAlv, you are reading a very old version of the IPC CoP.

Here is a link to the current version:
Code of Practice v6 Amended 14th June 2017.pdf

...although 5.1(m) remains the same.


But as Umkomaas has already said, that is only relevant if they intend to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

Coupon-mad

I think it is worth stating though...the CoP doesn't make that clear and gives a PPC no 'out' that I can see.

Interesting to put that point before a Judge and see the other side squirm to show how they can comply with the CoP, whilst issuing a late non-POFA PCN.

[Deleted User]

Thanks guys - I'll add the updated CoP to my exhibits, as I say the point regarding breach of CoP is not my main argument, more ammunition.

VCS are claiming keeper liability based on law of agency. The contract agreement with the landowner stipulated that the firm must adhere to the BPAs COP, in my view they haven't adhered to either BPA or IPC. BPA COP also requires a max 28 days to apply for keeper details to the DVLA, and they missed the mark there by ~120 days. I'll have to see what the judge thinks on it but to me its a breach of COP and therefore VCS aren't acting in accordance to their contract allowing them to sue on the landowners behalf.

If the judge calls me out on it then fair enough, I still think I have enough to win the case based on the case of Smith and Quayle already refuting law of agency.