Vehicle Control Services Limited (Again!)

Pinnocent

OK - so I've read POFA schedule 4. If the Claimant has stated in their Defence that "a CN was NOT affixed to the Defendants windscreen" doesn't this contravene:

Section 7 (4)
The notice must be given—
(a)
before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)
while the vehicle is stationary,

Pinnocent

...or have they gone straight from Notice to Driver to a Notice to Keeper?

Coupon-mad

You are asking what we've already explained, and Adam Buzz' thread already covers.

VCS are saying there was no NTD at all. That's rebuttable as per the other thread.

Pinnocent

Sorry CM - I must be having a dim moment!

I've re-read the POFA sections again and again, but just cannot see the bit that covers 'obtaining the keepers data too early'

Also, having re-read AdamBuzz's thread, his situation DID involve a "This is not a Parking Charge Notice" - upon which a lot of his subsequent defence applies to - whereas my thread didn't.

Coupon-mad

having re-read AdamBuzz's thread, his situation DID involve a "This is not a Parking Charge Notice" - upon which a lot of his subsequent defence applies to - whereas my thread didn't.

What?

You mentioned that case so I assumed that's what you had, too!

Are you saying you had a NTK by post (normal, as per para 9 of the POFA) that didn't say anything about a windscreen PCN at all, and that the car never had a red card warning on it? Like I say, that's normal.

Was the PCN issued by ANPR cameras showing the car driving in and out?

If it's a PDT machine site, did the driver pay? Or were they there mere minutes?

Redx

Pinnocent wrote: »

...or have they gone straight from Notice to Driver to a Notice to Keeper?

in your case there was no NTD , or CN , or anything else affixed to the vehicle , so you ignore that part completely

when there is no NTD (or CN) affixed to the vehicle , there is no warning to any driver of wrongdoing at all

the first anyone hears of it is within 15 days (if following POFA) by a letter in the post that we call a Notice To Keeper (NTK) - this is the first PCN that the keeper receives , where they could name the driver if they wish, or not , their choice

so this latter route is what happened , as per the usual for ANPR captures (or man with a camera in some cases)

therefore , as I said, if it came before day 15 then the wording is important, not the timescale

all this red card CN and NTD that are affixed to the windscreen is a red herring in your case and should be ignored , treat this as an ANPR capture and the 15 day rule applies

Pinnocent

Sorry CM - as I said, I've got two different threads running - one with a "This is not a Parking Charge Notice" and another without. Having read the AdamBuzz WS I was looking to use some of this in BOTH of the WS texts.

So for this thread...it was not an ANPR, but actually a 'man with a camera' - and no "This is not a Parking Charge Notice" - just straight to PCN/NTK (which arrived six days after the alleged contravention).

Coupon-mad

OK so they are allowed to use para 9 of the POFA, albeit it was only added when PPCs via the BPA, bleated about it during the reading of the POFA Bill in 2012, saying that they needed a postal route for ANPR camera cases.

However, the IPC CoP probably helps you here because I think it still sets out just two routes - the ANPR route, or the non-ANPR route. A poster here used the IPC CoP in their case recently, mentioning this point and showing that the PPC had not complied with either of the two routes allowed under their (effectively regulatory, according to the Supreme Court) Code of Practice.

Pinnocent

Understood. Thanks again.

Quick question: How important/relevant is it if VCS do not comply with a SAR within one calendar month?

Redx

You issue a reminder with a shorter timescale, then report them to the ICO because they have to comply with the GDPR

This obstinacy can also be reported to the judge as obstruction etc, so may help your case