Registered Keeper named the Driver

dekat

Thanks Fruitcake for your input.



I don't know who the landowner is because I was parked there as a contractor. By the time I found out the company I was coming to work for didn't have permits to park in the car park it was too late I already had a ticket. I have sent out a complaint to my MP a few days ago.

Coupon-mad

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.

MAkes no difference as you are the named admitted driver.

Why does the VCS evidence call you the keeper when you are not?

nigelbb

Fruitcake wrote: »

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.

The driver has been identified so whether there was an NTD or an NTK & whether there is a discrepancy is totally irrelevant. POFA 2012 & NTD/NTK are only of concern if the driver is unknown & the PPC is attempting to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver to the keeper.

nigelbb

dekat wrote: »

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'.

The RK has discharged any responsibility they may have had for an unpaid parking charge once they name the driver. As the driver has been identified they are the person who the PPC must pursue for any unpaid parking charge. The PPC cannot return the PCN to the RK & the RK has no reason to appeal.

The NTD not matching the NTK is irrelevant once the driver is identified as POFA 2012 & keeper liability goes out the window.

Computersaysno

nigelbb wrote: »

The RK has discharged any responsibility they may have had for an unpaid parking charge once they name the driver. As the driver has been identified they are the person who the PPC must pursue for any unpaid parking charge. The PPC cannot return the PCN to the RK....

Absolutely correct.


That's why the certain way to avoid these scumcos is to 'name someone else as the driver and provide a serviceable address'....


That then in effect puts the legal clock back to pre-2012 where the scumcos have to PROVE who the driver was...


One well-proven way is simply to makeup a name and use a doss-house address...the scumcos won't even bother checking or chasing other than their standard set of begging letters and empty threats.


Even if the scumco believes/knows for certain that the RK has given a false name and address for the driver they can't put the liability back on the RK.


POFA 2012 doesn't cover this eventuality.....


I speak as someone who knows someone who has dealt with 25+ tickets using this method....including naming the chief exec of the scumco as the driver, at the scumcos address!!


I'm sure others may disagree....but no-one can show me the bit where it says how liability is RE-established on an RK who has named the driver...

Computersaysno

As an addition I have not come across any cases where scumcos have tried to take RK to court for giving a false name and address of the driver.


Neither have I seen a case where the scumco has taken a named driver to court and won when the named driver has denied being the actual driver.

beamerguy

Computersaysno wrote: »

As an addition I have not come across any cases where scumcos have tried to take RK to court for giving a false name and address of the driver.


Neither have I seen a case where the scumco has taken a named driver to court and won when the named driver has denied being the actual driver.

You have not come across any cases ........ ????

What is your agenda on here ???

Computersaysno

beamerguy wrote: »

You have not come across any cases ........ ????

What is your agenda on here ???

What are you on about??


Agenda??


Next you'll be accusing me of being part of a conspiracy against you...break out the tinfoil hats.

dekat

VCS have sent another response after the Prima Facie letter. I didn't think this point was important to mention but now it is. To my understanding they have written that the NTD letter that they sent the named driver cancels out the original Red myparkingcharge notice (had mistakes, didn't match the NTK) they originally left on the car. See letter below. Would you be so kind to provide input because something that thought was easy now seems complicated. Thank you


1. The appellant states: “The Notice to Keeper and the Notice to Driver must agree and because they do not agree then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and cannot be used to make the keeper liable. VCS have no reasonable cause to continue processing my data as they have proven beyond the balance of probabilities that their accessing the Keeper database had no reasonable cause. This is a tortious breach of the Data Protection Act.”

2. We would refer the appellant and adjudicator back to point #11 of our Prima Facie submission wherein we stated: “We refer the adjudicator to the transfer of liability submitted by the appellant dated 10/2018 (supplied) in which they named a ............... as the Driver and the subsequent correspondence from .............named Driver dated 12/2018 in which they denied liability for the charge. This explains why the NTK was addressed to the appellant and the NTD was addressed to named Driver. Subsequently liability was reverted to the appellant as Registered Keeper of the vehicle”

3. In such circumstances it is not unusual or incorrect for there to be Two notices with different names on them. We can confirm we are holding ...................Registered Keeper liable for the charge under the keeper liability provisions of PoFA 2012.

4. As such there has been no breach of the Data Protection Act. We would also note that any request for the keeper details also came before any (incorrect) driver details were supplied to us so at the time of request we would have reasonable cause for such a request in any instance.

5. The appellant's vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit and therefore became liable for a Parking Charge Notice as per the displayed Terms and Conditions.

beamerguy

Computersaysno wrote: »

What are you on about??


Agenda??


Next you'll be accusing me of being part of a conspiracy against you...break out the tinfoil hats.

Highly possible