early morning ticket

skaart

Coupon-mad wrote: »

However it either says fairly low down on the front page, that they were proceeding 'on the assumption the keeper was the driver' (check that) OR it has the 28 period stated wrongly from the 'date of this notice' (check it!).

It doesn't use that wording, no. NTK is here: https://gofile.io/?c=nVJwUi

I'll start work on the Skeleton now, thanks for the update on the CE16 case.

Their Witness statement is huge and seems pretty copy and paste. I'm redacting it now for upload. As we both predicted, they have got their 10 year old contract in there. The contract says that it is for a "fixed period of60 months from the 15th January 2010." So I'm not sure how they think that carries forward to 2017 anyway.

Also Photos of the car park conveniently from about 3 days before the "contravention". None of them show the main sign clearly enough to read who it says the contact is with, not that it really matters. If anything, their images are doing them a disservice, given they say excel ALL over them, and not a single mention of VCS. The only thing which mentions VCS is their printed artwork, which we know is on version2, version1 presumably the one before that said the contarct was with excel!

Regarding the Excel v Smith case; what am I submitting? Will the download on Prankster's site suffice?

Thanks Coupon-mad.

skaart

Their Witness statement: I have OCRd it so it will hopefully make it a more usable document for people in future to copy and paste from.

https://gofile.io/?c=Mw66Tc

Coupon-mad

skaart wrote: »

Regarding the Excel v Smith case; what am I submitting? Will the download on Prankster's site suffice?

The transcript of the Judge's words (not the blog by the Prankster).

Originally Posted by Coupon-mad
However it either says fairly low down on the front page, that they were proceeding 'on the assumption the keeper was the driver' (check that) OR it has the 28 period stated wrongly from the 'date of this notice' (check it!).

It doesn't use that wording, no. NTK is here: https://gofile.io/?c=nVJwUi

Yes it does, I gave you two scenarios of wording and it has the second version that I said in the above quote. I did already say, VCS have NEVER had a POFA-compliant NTK.

It is also a hybrid document scenario with a red card masquerading as a PCN yet saying 'THIS IS NOT A PCN' so you need to copy from adambuzz14's thread. He covered it in his WS and he worked very hard at his hearing to turn the Judge's opinion right round, to see what he meant, that this was non-POFA compliant.

I believe he also posted his actual transcript and so you need to add that as evidence and refer to his case, as well, in your skeleton argument about the legal issues.

BTW that is a very long WS but you should object that she cannot POSSIBLY have personal knowledge about the signage (positioning, number, and whether Excel or VCS were on the signs) on the material date, nor can she be heard to truthfully say that the contract ran from 2010 to date and was not terminated, as she just started work at VCS and she is unlikely to turn up to be questioned, so the entire WS should be disallowed!

I am employed by Vehicle Control Services Limited as a Paralegal and have been employed since August 2019. The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge

And the VCS Skelly example I showed you linked in post #31 deals with her rabbiting on about Thornton and Vine... so please use that as your base and add the other stuff like Excel v Smith and adambuzz14's transcript.

Haha, LOL about everything she says:

62. Paragraphs 8-9 of the Defence are denied. Reference is made to the signage contained within FJ1, although the signs state that Excel Parking Services Limited manage and control the car park.

She quotes para 9 of the POFA but that is only for where nothing has been placed on the car, but your car did have a 'red card' asking for payment or appeal online, ambiguously giving ALL appearances of being a Notice to Driver, yet pretending it wasn't one (that is why you need adambuzz14's transcript).

You also need to know that the DVLA has stopped VCS from doing this now (red cards) as they were ambiguous and 'misleading omissions' contrary to the CPUTRs and Consumer Rights Act 2015 as far as transparency of consumer notices is concerned.

skaart

Coupon-mad wrote: »

She quotes para 9 of the POFA but that is only for where nothing has been placed on the car, but your car did have a 'red card' asking for payment or appeal online, ambiguously giving ALL appearances of being a Notice to Driver, yet pretending it wasn't one (that is why you need adambuzz14's transcript).

You also need to know that the DVLA has stopped VCS from doing this now (red cards) as they were ambiguous and 'misleading omissions' contrary to the CPUTRs and Consumer Rights Act 2015 as far as transparency of consumer notices is concerned.

There quite a few mistakes in their witness statement I don't even know where to begin. I'd like to point them out to you but I'm wondering if I'm better keeping quiet on a public forum in case they check and see the list I've made for them! Where they have said things which are simply not true or relevant to this case, and have been copied and pasted from a Witenss statement that isn't applicable to mine, do I just add a para in the Skelly for each of these?

nosferatu1001

POint them out. Theres nothing they can do now to rescue this.

You could do a supplementary WS pointing out al the crap theyve put, starting with - there is no way she can say anything not in here knowledge, and basically everything there is not in her knowledge...

skaart

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The transcript of the Judge's words (not the blog by the Prankster).
She quotes para 9 of the POFA but that is only for where nothing has been placed on the car, but your car did have a 'red card' asking for payment or appeal online, ambiguously giving ALL appearances of being a Notice to Driver, yet pretending it wasn't one (that is why you need adambuzz14's transcript).

Actually her mistake is in saying that a red card was given. It wasn't. The paragraph 9 is the correct para for what happened in the instance that actually happened, where the vehicle was spotted by ANPR. I have no idea what this red card nonsense came from. I can only assume it was erroneously copied and pasted from another WS.

skaart

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes it does, I gave you two scenarios of wording and it has the second version that I said in the above quote. I did already say, VCS have NEVER had a POFA-compliant NTK.

Sorry perhaps I am being dense:

The final paragraph of the NTK reads:

"Please be warned: that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this notice, the amount of the unpaid parking Charge specified in this Notice has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, we will have the right to recover from the registered keeper, any unpaid balance of the parking charge. "

I presume that's that bit you are saying is non compliant? But seems to be demanded by:

POFA Para 9, 2, f:
The notice must—
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

paulstevens64

Skaart,

Coupon Mad is telling you that the NTK says that it is following on from a Red Card "Not a PCN". Given you do not know who the driver is, it seems reasonable that they may have binned the Red Card. Re read your NTK, and take CM's advice about what to add in to your Skellie Argument.

KeithP

There is a difference between "the day after the Issue Date of this notice" and "the day after that on which the notice is given".

That difference is two working days.

skaart

KeithP wrote: »

There is a difference between "the day after the Issue Date of this notice" and "the day after that on which the notice is given".

That difference is two working days.

Seems so obvious now. I was tearing my hair out. Thanks.

paulstevens64 wrote: »

Skaart,

Coupon Mad is telling you that the NTK says that it is following on from a Red Card "Not a PCN". Given you do not know who the driver is, it seems reasonable that they may have binned the Red Card. Re read your NTK, and take CM's advice about what to add in to your Skellie Argument.

Ok I have reread and still don't see where the NTK mentions anything about a red card. It says it has been detected and recorded by ANPR. It also says it was brought to the driver's attention by signage. Not by a red card or any kind of physical notice. That's why I took para 9 of POFA to be the one which my NTK had to meet the requirements of.

It does indeed seem reasonable the driver may have binned the red card. But it also seems reasonable that no card was put there since I very much doubt they had both ANPR in operation AND were paying an attendant to put tickets on windscreens at 6am on Sunday morning in February. That is of course by the by and not really worth pursuing, but it still stands that I don't see where it says on the NTK anything about this.

I will continue to work on my skellie as per all your advice, for which I'm very grateful.