PPC Denies 'No Keeper Liability' Appeal Even Though NTK Sent Way Too Late, What Next...? (WON)

muleskinner

Hi,

Enquiring on behalf of my son. The driver of his car who shall remain nameless received a windscreen PCN from 'Vehicle Control Services' in January. Nobody acted on it. He received an NTK a couple of weeks ago, so outside the POFA time limits by some considerable margin.

I've read through the FAQs and got him to make the template 'No Keeper Liability' appeal. He's just received a notification that his appeal is denied, the core of which states...

You state that our Notice is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 on the Notice issued to you; however we have not cited POFA 2012 nor stated that you are liable for the Charge as the vehicle keeper.

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.   

So I'm wondering what he should do now? FAQ seems to imply it's just wait until court as VCS are IAS members. Should this get that far will it just get thrown out or is there a chance the judge will rule against him 'on the reasonable assumption that he was the driver of the vehicle'?

I have been through the pain and grief of fighting a PPC myself. I won, but it was extremely time consuming and caused me a huge amount of stress. I'm not sure I'd want to sign him up for that (though he'd probably take it on) unless this is pretty much a 'golden-ticket-esque' scenario. 

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Wait for court.

Umkomaas

It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.   

Standard modus op for VCS. It will need a Judge to decide.

Coupon-mad

You could respond and say that the new DLUHC statutory Code prohibits that, and whilst the Code is currently suspended, that's only for a challenge about the levels of money, not any other clauses.

Add that they already know from failed court hearings that they cannot 'assume a keeper was driving'.  These include VCS v Quayle and the appeal case their sister firm lost, Excel v Smith. This was also confirmed by eminent parking expert barrister Henry Greenslade in the POPLA annual report 2015, where parking firms were told they must never imply a keeper was the driver or can be held liable outside the POFA. VCS had left the BPA at the time but the legal point still stands, as confirmed by the Quayle and Smith transcripts (the latter appeal level finding being persuasive).

Indeed if you fancy a laugh you could try the above at IAS.  You'd need to include the transcripts as uploads. 

Fruitcake

If the keeper was not the driver, then an IAS appeal may be worthwhile, as long as the PoFA failure is spelled out,

muleskinner

Coupon-mad said:

You could respond and say that the new DLUHC statutory Code prohibits that, and whilst the Code is currently suspended, that's only for a challenge about the levels of money, not any other clauses.

Add that they already know from failed court hearings that they cannot 'assume a keeper was driving'.  These include VCS v Quayle and the appeal case their sister firm lost, Excel v Smith. This was also confirmed by eminent parking expert barrister Henry Greenslade in the POPLA annual report 2015, where parking firms were told they must never imply a keeper was the driver or can be held liable outside the POFA. VCS had left the BPA at the time but the legal point still stands, as confirmed by the Quayle and Smith transcripts (the latter appeal level finding being persuasive).

Indeed if you fancy a laugh you could try the above at IAS.  You'd need to include the transcripts as uploads. 

OK, thanks. Do you know if this approach has ever succeeded at IAS? I'm guessing IAS is just as much of a kangaroo court as it was a few years back when I last went through this.

Coupon-mad

Yes because in 1 in 5 cases a PPC will offer no contest. That's the only reason to try it.

The IAS itself is no use to anyone, allegedly.

muleskinner

So... a County Court action was brought. I filed a defence along with the best evidence I had that the keeper wasn't the driver at the time of the offence. Case now has been transferred to my local court.

The Defendant has now received two letters in the post (separately) from VCS on the same day dated 1st Feb (received a couple of weeks ago). One of these letters is a lame 'offer to settle' worded as if they're still going full steam ahead, the other is a 'Notice Of Discontinuance' along with a cover letter confirming that said notice has been served on the Court!?

It's over two weeks later and nothing in MCOL saying the claim has been discontinued so I'm wondering what I should do here, are they just playing silly beggars and trying to mess with me? Should I go ahead and file the final defence or can I rely on this 'Notice Of Discontinuance' and assume the matter is closed.

I've half a mind to send their NOD to the Court for them!

Any input appreciated!     

cheers

Grizebeck

No the case is over

muleskinner

OK, well that's great news, thanks! I can chalk up another win!

KeithP

As @Grizebeck says, it's all over.

MCOL serves no purpose once a claim is transferred to a hearing court and is never updated once that point is passed.