CPMS

Tysernans2018

Clearly got an issue with their dates, it wasn't issued on the 16th it was issued on the 11th, it was sent the 16th. And it wasn't appealed on the 23rd it was appealed on the 28th!! This reply is obviously for my complaint on the 23rd NOT my appeal on 28th but has come from their appeals department. 

Coupon-mad

None of that really matters.  Do an IAS (kangaroo court) appeal for the laugh and to look reasonable.

Tysernans2018

Coupon-mad said:

None of that really matters.  Do an IAS (kangaroo court) appeal for the laugh and to look reasonable.

I don't follow, I haven't done anything with the 2nd PCN yet, are they seriously going ahead with the first one with false data? What's the point of sending a second then? 

D_P_Dance

The point is that these appeals cost them money and can be shown to a judge as a willingness to treat the issue seriously.  

Coupon-mad

"The rest of your appeal is outdated."

Hilarious!

Just do the next stage appeal with evidence attached.  Although no-one is likely to win a decided case from the IAS kangaroo court, twenty per cent are dropped by operators to save money.

It also looks reasonable later if you have to defend a court claim, if you engaged with the broken appeal 'service'.

Fruitcake

Appeal to the IAS. Make absolutely no mention of the NTK being re-issued.

Do not reveal the driver's identity. Appeal as keeper, quoting the PCN number.

Your main appeal point should be that issue date as clearly shown on the NTK was the 11th of Feb, but the photos clearly show an alleged incident date of the 12th of Feb.
Make sure you include a copy of that version of the NTK.
Highlight the fact that the issue date of the NTK was the day before the date of the alleged event, which is an impossibility. 

Your second point should be primacy of contract. Your lease/AST/property rental agreement trumps anything an unregulated private parking company that was not a party to your lease etcetera has to say.
What your lease/AST doesn't say is just as important.
If there is no mention of PPCs, PCNs, paying PCNs, in your lease etcetera, then there is no requirement to pay because you never had a contract with the PPC.

There are no templates, but show us your draft IAS appeal before you submit it. Remember, you are appealing as the keeper.

How did you get on with your complaints to the landowner and managing agent?

Tysernans2018

Fruitcake said:

Appeal to the IAS. Make absolutely no mention of the NTK being re-issued.

Do not reveal the driver's identity. Appeal as keeper, quoting the PCN number.

Your main appeal point should be that issue date as clearly shown on the NTK was the 11th of Feb, but the photos clearly show an alleged incident date of the 12th of Feb.
Make sure you include a copy of that version of the NTK.
Highlight the fact that the issue date of the NTK was the day before the date of the alleged event, which is an impossibility. 

Your second point should be primacy of contract. Your lease/AST/property rental agreement trumps anything an unregulated private parking company that was not a party to your lease etcetera has to say.
What your lease/AST doesn't say is just as important.
If there is no mention of PPCs, PCNs, paying PCNs, in your lease etcetera, then there is no requirement to pay because you never had a contract with the PPC.

There are no templates, but show us your draft IAS appeal before you submit it. Remember, you are appealing as the keeper.

How did you get on with your complaints to the landowner and managing agent?

Ok thanks, while this appeal to the IAS is going through, I'll have to appeal the re-issued NTK. Management agent not interested, still trying to find out who current landowner is, I'll have a good look through the keepers lease when I get it 

Fruitcake

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

Tysernans2018

Fruitcake said:

No, do not appeal the re-issued NTK!

There is only 1 PCN number, so you appeal the original version of that. If you are successful then they cannot (should not) pursue the re-issued NTK because it has the same PCN number.

If they try to pursue the re-issued NTK, then you complain each and every time to them and the IPC that you have an active appeal for the PCN number with the IAS.

As I said before, I do not think you should acknowledge the re-issued NTK at all. Call it a copy or a reminder if you like, but do not refer to it as a second PCN, because it isn't; it can't be because it is for the same alleged event and has the same PCN number.

**UPDATE**

DVLA Response to complaint

Dear XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your email of 23rd February about the release of information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency’s (DVLA) vehicle register.   The DVLA takes the protection and security of its data very seriously and has procedures in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so and where the provisions of the Data Protection Law are met. The Agency must strike a balance between ensuring the privacy of motorists is respected while enabling those who may have suffered loss or damage to seek redress.  Drivers choosing to park a vehicle on private land do so subject to the terms and conditions set out on signage in the car park. The need to contact individuals who may not have complied with these conditions is, in most circumstances, considered to be a reasonable cause. Data is provided by the DVLA to enable landowners or their agents to pursue their legal rights and to address disputes. I hope you can appreciate that if this were not the case, motorists would be able to park with disregard for the conditions applying with little prospect of being held accountable.  The DVLA does not profit from the release of information from its registers. The legislation that allows the release of vehicle keeper information under the reasonable cause provisions provides for a fee to be levied by the DVLA. This meets the cost of fulfilling requests, so the cost is borne by the requestor and not passed on to the general taxpayer.  I have now investigated this matter with Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd who have confirmed that, due to human error, the original penalty charge notice sent to you showed the incorrect date of event. They have confirmed that a further penalty charge notice was issued to you following this with the correct date of event.  The DVLA cannot determine liability when dealing with requests for information. Under the regulations, the DVLA discloses keeper information as a first point of contact to help investigate where liability might lie. If a motorist feels that they have been unfairly sent a parking charge notice they may want to appeal it. To do this, they should follow the guidance on how to make an appeal which is included on the parking charge notice they received.   To help ensure motorists are treated fairly when any private parking charge is pursued the DVLA discloses vehicle keeper information only to companies that are members of an appropriate Accredited Trade Association (ATA). The purpose of requiring a company to be a member of an ATA is to ensure that those who request DVLA information are legitimate companies that operate within a code of practice that promotes fair treatment of the motorist and ensures that there is a clear set of standards for operators.

**Note the section about the NTK**

Umkomaas

I have now investigated this matter with Car Park Management Services (CPMS) Ltd who have confirmed that, due to human error, the original penalty charge notice sent to you showed the incorrect date of event. They have confirmed that a further penalty charge notice was issued to you following this with the correct date of event. 

Are the DVLA serious?  Go back to them and ask them to confirm that CPMS have stated they have issued two penalty charge notices. I wouldn't highlight 'penalty', just ask them to confirm.