Incorrect VRN on a windscreen ticket

bye_bye_band_G

A family member has received a parking ticket for parking my car in a permit only car park without a permit. They are young and inexperienced and just didn't realise what was going on.

There is a windscreen ticket but it has the incorrect VRN for the car, one letter is wrong. I have read the Newbies thread and think this may be a defence, should one be needed. My logic is if there's a windscreen ticket the NTK should arrive after the time period it should have arrived if there was no windscreen ticket. As the operator will assume they've given a valid windscreen ticket I expect the NTK to arrive in days 29-57. Do we just say the windscreen ticket was invalid so the NTK should have arrived by day 14?

As they've ticked that they've taken photos, they may well realise their mistake and apply to the DVLA for keeper details with the correct VRN so the possibility of a NTK not arriving can't be relied on.

The operator is an IPC member so I know appeals are unlikely to succeed with them, and ultimately we may have to rely on them not proceeding to court with this, but I would like to know if this defence, even if they don't allow it themselves, would win in a court? For peace of mind.

Thanks for any help!

Umkomaas

Sometimes they put in an incorrect digit to entice whoever is dealing with it to phone them to 'sort it out' - last thing anyone should do is phone a parking company ( or a debt collector for that matter) as nothing good will come out of it.

If it's a genuine error, then a NtK will be wheeling its way to a very shocked, unsuspecting recipient who has been nowhere near that car park. So my advice is that you wait patiently for the 56 days to expire for the receipt of the NtK. Even if the PPC recognises its mistake and amend the VRM before sending to the DVLA for your data, it does ruin their prospect of holding the keeper liable as the information in the NtK must reflect that of the NtD (windscreen ticket) to be able to hold the keeper liable.

Please note - this doesn't invalidate the ticket, and you won't get any help from the IPC or their IAS, but it's something to put to a Judge if it gets to that stage.

The_Deep

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this 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.

bye_bye_band_G

Thanks very much @Umkomaas, that's really helpful.
I'm glad it was you who replied because when I searched this board for the operator in question, I found past posts where you mentioned statistics of how frequently they have been known to take cases to court. Both the links you gave are no longer active though.
Do you have any up to date links at all where I could find out this info for an IPC operator (would prefer not to name them at this point) please?

Parkingfines

You can safely name the parking company it wont make any difference
follow previous advice and just wait for NTK

Umkomaas

bye_bye_band_G wrote: »

Thanks very much @Umkomaas, that's really helpful.
I'm glad it was you who replied because when I searched this board for the operator in question, I found past posts where you mentioned statistics of how frequently they have been known to take cases to court. Both the links you gave are no longer active though.
Do you have any up to date links at all where I could find out this info for an IPC operator (would prefer not to name them at this point) please?

Unfortunately, that fantastic resource has now been discontinued, my understanding is that it was extremely resource and time intensive and the one person managing the website found it taking too much of their time.

You seem reluctant to name the PPC. Different PPCs need handling differently. Not knowing which one makes it difficult to focus advice, so all you might get is just very general stuff, which you'll have to pick your own route through, with a danger of error creeping in. Some regulars don't give advice if they don't know who they are dealing with, as a lot of it could be wasted effort in a high-volume environment where there's an unrelenting demand for help!

bye_bye_band_G

Thanks Umkomaas, I'd prefer still not to name them right now. I understand your point so will leave it for now as I'm sure the advice for all of the IPC PPCs at this early stage would be to leave it and see if and when the NTK arrives. If I need further advice at that point then I'll come back and name the PPC. The Newbies thread seems really comprehensive so hopefully that will be all I'll need, I will follow it to the letter.
Much appreciated.

nosferatu1001

Actually we usually suggest appealling day 26, so they dont then go to the DVLA to get the Keepers details. This measns the keeper is never liable.

Umkomaas

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Actually we usually suggest appealling day 26, so they dont then go to the DVLA to get the Keepers details. This measns the keeper is never liable.

It may never come to the PPC contacting the DVLA about the OP's vehicle as they have recorded one of the VRM digits incorrectly, so if they use that they'll be chasing a complete stranger to the event.

If they rectify the error (from any photos they have of the actual VRM), then the NtK won't match the NtD - no Keeper Liability.

My view is not to disturb the sleepy!

Half_way

why is a permit required to park in that particular space?