Registered Keeper named the Driver

dekat

Hello,
I would be grateful to receive your help because I can't see any similar straightforward examples on this forum or other forums.

The Registered Keeper's car received a red parking charge notice 'This is Not A Parking Charge' in October 2018 from VCS for contravention 94) Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit. Within 14 days the Keeper was sent an NTK.

The Registered Keeper named the Driver to VCS because she didn't want to deal with the stress of writing letters or get her credit affected or go to court within 6 years.

The Driver noted that VCS have no leg to stand on - NTK/NTD details do not match.

Can the Driver use the original evidence the Keeper received to write an appeal to VCS? What template letter can be used in this case?

Thanks so much in advance

Fruitcake

As far as I know, once the Driver has been identified, the NTK becomes irrelevant as do any discrepancies between the NTD and NTK.

The Driver now has to fight this on his/her own or deny/refuse to accept they were driving. If they refuse to acknowledge that they were driving, then it's back to The Keeper.

If The Driver accepts they were driving then they have to defend using all available appeal points except PoFA failures.

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

beamerguy

dekat wrote: »

Hello,
I would be grateful to receive your help because I can't see any similar straightforward examples on this forum or other forums.

The Registered Keeper's car received a red parking charge notice 'This is Not A Parking Charge' in October 2018 from VCS for contravention 94) Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit. Within 14 days the Keeper was sent an NTK.

The Registered Keeper named the Driver to VCS because she didn't want to deal with the stress of writing letters or get her credit affected or go to court within 6 years.

The Driver noted that VCS have no leg to stand on - NTK/NTD details do not match.

Can the Driver use the original evidence the Keeper received to write an appeal to VCS? What template letter can be used in this case?

Thanks so much in advance

I think before the driver assumes things they should look at the IPC code of practice
https://theipc.info/resources/brandings/brandmedia_2_Code-of-Practice.pdf

VCS is an IPC member,

'This is Not A Parking Charge' is highly misleading especially
when you turn this red piece of paper over and you are then directed to a payment site.

Many people would bin such a notice because it says "This is not a Parking charge"

There are laws to protect the public against misleading information which could be unlawful or illegal.
Read below and if you believe you are being mislead, contact your local Trading Standards

MISLEADING AND AGGRESSIVE COMMERCIAL PRACTICES
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721872/misleading-aggressive-commercial-practices-guidance.pdf

Part 1: Liability for misleading and aggressive
practices
The 2008 Regulations make misleading actions unlawful
(see regulation 5). An action by a trader is misleading if it
contains false information or if it is likely to mislead
the average consumer in its overall presentation.

Consumer payments and “civil recovery”
The Regulations amend the definition of a “transactional decision”
to expressly cover demands for payment from a consumer in full
or partial settlement of the consumer’s liabilities or purported
liabilities to the trader (see reg 2(1A) of the 2008 Regulations).
This means that misleading and aggressive practices in respect of
such demands would now clearly lead to both criminal sanctions
(under the 2008 Regulations)

Computersaysno

Fruitcake wrote: »

If they refuse to acknowledge that they were driving, then it's back to The Keeper....

I'm not quite sure it is.


POFA says the keeper can identify the driver...but AFAICR it doesn't actually say anything about what happens when the 'named driver' denies being 'the driver'.


Everyone seems to be assuming it defaults back to the keeper...but I see nothing to say that.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, nothing states it does

The PPC has to sue the named Driver, and prove on the balance of probabilities they were the driver.

dekat

Thanks for your responses. Lease companies always name the driver. Doesn't the same rule apply to my situation?

KeithP

dekat wrote: »

Lease companies always name the driver.

No they don't.

How on earth can the lease company know who was driving?

All the lease company can do is tell the PPC who is the day to day keeper. Anyone with insurance and permission could've been the driver. The lease company are in no position to say who was driving at any particular time.

Castle

dekat wrote: »

Thanks for your responses. Lease companies always name the driver. Doesn't the same rule apply to my situation?

Lease companies can only name the hirer.

dekat

Original case with VCS: The Registered Keeper's original documents has many faults e.g. NTD Red myparkingcharge.co.uk notice and NTK PCN Reference Numbers do not match. The time stamp on the NTD Red myparkingcharge.co.uk notice and the NTK letter do not match. There was no grace period observation written on the NTK letter.


After carrying out a lot of research found a similar case/letter template on pepipoo forum. The Driver wrote a letter to VCS denying driver liability and the PCN was returned to the Registered Keeper. :j


I know that we're not meant to appeal to IAS but it shows the court that I made an effort. I also thought this would be a straightforward cancellation so I sent an appeal to IAS as Registered Keeper in the lines of the 'NTD and NTK do not match the matter is closed'. VCS then provided the following Prima Facie response.



Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated especially about point no 4 and 5.

Prima Facie Letter


The operator reported that...
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..response
The Notice to Keeper (Non-ANPR) was sent on 18/10/2018.
The ticket was issued on 08/10/2018.
The charge is based in Contract.


The operator made the following comments...


1. The Kennett House Car Park is private land which motorists are allowed to enter to park their vehicles, provided that they abide by any displayed conditions of parking.


2. The signage onsite states “Valid Parking Permits Only - Park Only Within Allocated Bays'. The signage supplied makes it clear that any motorist parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions displayed will be liable for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN).


3. Site photos supplied show that signage can be observed throughout the car park. The adjudicator will note that this car park and its VCS signage, including the wording and positioning of the signage have been audited by the IPC, have passed audit and that the signage, including its wording and positioning complies with the IPC Code of Practice.


4. Enforcement for parking contraventions at this car site is undertaken by patrol officers who use a Hand Held Terminal (HHT) to record details of any vehicle and its registration number, which may be parked in contravention of the advertised Terms & Conditions. Those images and other relevant information are uploaded in real time to a secure portal, where the information is reviewed. No formal Parking Charge Notice is affixed to the vehicle; instead, a formal Notice is subsequently issued by post, this practice falls in line with the process and procedures as per site management using ANPR technology.

5. However, as a means of forewarning the driver that a parking contravention may have been identified, an MPC (MyParkingCharge) card is affixed to the vehicle in order to prevent a possible re-occurrence of a parking contravention, prior to a formal notice being received. That card is deemed to be "A Call to Action", and allows the driver the opportunity to view details of the parking incident on the MyParkingCharge gateway (myparkingcharge website) and, as appropriate, supply details, make an appeal, or make payment.


6. A series of images were taken showing the location of the vehicle in relation to the signs on site, they are time and date stamped and show the appellant's vehicle parked adjacent to at least one of the warning signs. The MPC card was affixed to the vehicle directing the driver to the MyParkingCharge gateway.


7. The Patrol Officer (PO) observed the appellant's vehicle in situ for 10 minutes before issuing the MPC card. When digitally recording the contravention, the PO noted ‘No Permit. Warning signs visible 3, this vehicle was observed parked for ten minutes with no visible permit.:'


8. Photographic evidence supplied, which is time and date stamped, clearly shows the appellant's vehicle parked as observed by the PO, parked on site without displaying a valid permit.


9. In their appeal to the IAS, denies being the keeper and states ‘The details on the Notice to Keeper do not match with the details on the Notice to Driver. It is invalid. Please see attached documents. It therefore fails to meet the requirements of POFA 2012 to hold me liable as Keeper for the actions of the Driver. In the absence of any legal obligation I refuse to identify the Driver to a private company. The matter is closed. Final response should be sent in writing to the postal address given,'


10. As registered keeper, we are holding the appellant liable for the Charge Notice under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, details of which where explained in the formal Notice sent on 08/10/2018. It is important that we make the adjudicator aware that we will rely on the keeper liability provisions within Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and as such, do not require details of the driver at the time of the parking event.


11. As registered keeper of the vehicle the appellant is liable for the charge as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012


12. Ultimately, when entering this private car park it was the sole responsibility of the appellant to fully comply with the clearly advertised contractual terms and conditions of parking, by their failure to do so the appellant rendered themselves liable for the PCN, which was lawfully issued.


13. The appellant parked without displaying a valid permit and therefore became liable for a Parking Charge Notice as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.

Fruitcake

According to the scammers, there was no NTD, which the DVLA are happy to go along with. Therefore there was no discrepancy between the NTD and NTK because the NTD was "A Call to Action" not an NTD.

You couldn't make this crap up.


You were advised not to make an IAS appeal and now you know why. You are now in ignore mode unless you get real court papers.

What happened when you complained to the landowner?

What happened when you complained to your MP about this unregulated scam?