Vehicle Control Services NTK

The_Deep

If this were to go to court IIMO that a judge is likely to throw it out as de minimis.

Have you complained to your MP yet?

bennjiboy

thanks for that, and yes I complained to my local MP as well

Redx

bennjiboy wrote: »

Ok, so I went on their website to start the process, and there was more photos, a total of 8, including one showing 1 wheel of the car parked on a small part of block paving. The block paved area is about 3m x 1m thats all. There is another photo with the sign ahead of the car by about 15meters which the car didnt drive past and is not readable from the car. The driver did not see those signs when parking.

Are either of these valid points of appeal?

appeal to who ? you have already appealed, using the blue text catch all appeal


there is no further stage worth taking after you have appealed to VCS


read the NEWBIES thread about the IAS and debt collectors

Coupon-mad

Maybe appeal to IAS once you get rejected, and put VCS to strict proof that:

- the car was parked in a 'restricted area' that was marked and visible in the dark

- that the signs and restricted area were lit

- they have evidence of who was driving, since the NTK was served too late for keeper liability under the POFA and also omits the wording needed.

You need to know IAS is almost never won, and is considered by posters here to be a 'kangaroo court' - but it's not binding on you so the lack of lit signs and lack of marked 'restricted area' might be hard for VCS to prove to the IAS and they might think again and offer no contest.

Only do the above if you understand:

NOT TO SAY WHO PARKED, SO NO 'ME/MYSELF OR I'

YOUR FIRST POST NEEDS EDITING, AS PPCS READ THE FORUM AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE DRIVER!

NOT TO PAY THE PCN IF YOU LOSE AT IAS!

These cases are won at court stage by posters here 99% of the time.

bennjiboy

thanks Redx and Coupon-mad

will come back once my appeal is rejected for more super advice :-)

Coupon-mad

...

''went back the next day''

Only THE DRIVER 'went back' (you need to edit your first post to remove the first word you typed in that sentence). ''Going back'' confirms a return by the person!

bennjiboy

The_Deep wrote: »

If this were to go to court IIMO that a judge is likely to throw it out as de minimis.

Have you complained to your MP yet?

Hi The Deep

Emailed local MP, and they emailed back the below - local MP actually raised this in parliament yesterday. As the keeper, have asked them to assist which will hopefully support the appeal once IAS get involved :-)

---

I am writing regarding the email you have sent to Anna regarding about private parking companies and penalty charges.

Anna actually raised this issue in a debate in Parliament yesterday. Here is the link:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cd16bca4-f70d-412b-9204-5cb79761ce7f?in=11:37:05&out=11:38:40

Anna will continue to monitor the situation and contribute to the debates as necessary.

We have successfully challenged number of penalty charges over the last few years and if you would like to us to assist in challenging your please do let us know.

In addition, if there are any other issues you need assistance with please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

Coupon-mad

That's good to see.

bennjiboy

ok, so the appeal was rejected - no surprise. They have said, as i am the keeper, i can appeal to the IAS - which i understand will most likely fail, but I will appeal.

Letter can be seen here

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3giamwfwc328xfa/VCS1.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5y29gagvkrtoiea/VCS2.jpg?dl=0

As mentioned, the NTK was served too late for keeper liability under the POFA and also omits the wording needed. Their letter states "we will pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver...unless evidence to the contrary is provided"

Thinking to appeal on the grounds that:
1. Please send the contract proving that VCS have an agreement with the landowner to operate lawfully in the area in question.
2. The area is badly lit, therefore the Driver would not be able to see or read the signs from where the vehicle was parked.
3. The driver did not pass any signs before parking, a video has been taken of the route into the area which proves that the driver did not pass any signs before parking, and that the sign shown on the photo is too far away and dimly lit making it unreadable.
4. The photo you sent shows that the car is not parked in the "blocked paved area & Access road" where the sign is located. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7e4sb818k994k1c/location.jpg?dl=0
5. Similarly, the car is NOT on an access road as the vehicle is not on a Road.
6. Another photo shows the rear wheel half touching some slabs, which are clearly NOT block paving https://www.dropbox.com/s/mxp7g9rpzdgtowd/Wheel.jpg?dl=0
7. Furthermore, there is no clear markings to constitute where the "restricted" area is, therefore it is not possible for the driver to accept the terms

Therefore, as keeper, I put VCS to strict proof that:

- the car was parked in a 'restricted area' that was marked and visible in the dark

- that the signs and restricted area were lit

- they have evidence of who was driving, since the NTK was served too late for keeper liability under the POFA and also omits the wording needed.

Anything to change/add/delete please?

KeithP

You seem to be asking people to help you compile an appeal to the IAS.

Considering the guidance offered in the NEWBIES thread, you may not get much help with that.