in court yesterday

RobinofLoxley

Fruitcake wrote: »

Unfortunately the DVLA have agreed that a notice left on the windscreen for the driver to find is not a notice to driver if it says, this is not a notice to driver.

Thus, sending the NTK by day 7 meets the timescales of para 9 of the PoFA so the judge was correct in that respect, but only because the DVLA have sided with the scammers.

However, I believe the judge was completely wrong about the fake add on £60 charge since the signs (allegedly) form the contract with the motorist, not the subsequent NTK.

There was a court case from earlier this year in which the judge decided that the red 'this is not a parking charge notice' card VCS placed on the windscreen was indeed a 'Notice to Driver'. He dismissed the claim based on this and found that VCS had failed to comply with POFA in that they had not followed up the NTD with the NTK within the prescribed timeframe.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5906037/urgent-fighting-county-court-claim-for-pcn&page=4#77

I see in a recent post on that thread Coupon Mad has said that she's heard VCS have stopped using these windscreen notices.

Johno100

I was under the impression that if a windscreen ticket (notice to driver) had been issued (which was the case here) that for keeper liability the NTK must be received between day 28 and day 56 (para 8 section 5) of POFA. Elms was adamant that there were 2 routes that KL could be established and that he was relying on section 9 of POFA (that’s on page 6 of the official documentation). We discussed this for about 15 minutes and eventually the judge agreed with Elms, so KL was thus established. The issue of who was driving was therefore irrelevant and so not even considered.

You need to clarify when the NTK was received, was it received early between day 0 and 14 or after day 56?

Snakes_Belly

Well done. Shame about costs but moral victories are good.

As a matter of interest has any of the VCS 2015 cases been heard yet?

beamerguy

RobinofLoxley wrote: »

I suppose the onus is on the PPC to prove they have paid the £60 to the debt recovery company even though the alleged debt wasn't recovered. They would have to produce an invoice from DRP in court to that effect and show that it was paid and prove these extra costs have been incurred.

They could produce whatever they want but according to the Supreme Court it's all inclusive