Invoice for stopping on Red Line (Airport)

Le_Kirk

Yep, follow @Fruitcake's advice - no need for another (new) thread, this one seems to be going OK

Fruitcake

fredblessed said:

Thank you for putting so much effort into producing evidence. I have privately sent you a link to a bike pictured in a similar location to mine. I hope that was acceptable (just ignore it if not).

I got the message but the dropbox link doesn't work. In any case, unless it shows photos of the actual (alleged) event, they are of no value.

fredblessed

VCS have replied saying they are unable to process the internal appeal until the driver has been identified. If I ignore the letter am I entitled to receive a rejection in due course with details of how to appeal to the IAS?

Coupon-mad

Please show us their reply.

I want to show the DLUHC (Government ministers) the appeals game that IPC firms are now playing as standard, which completely denies keepers their right to appeal.

fredblessed

Hi Coupon-mad. Of course, very happy to share it with you.

Coupon-mad

So basically, due to the joke of the new 2024 'joint Code of Practice' cooked up by the IPC and BPA, there will never be a stage when keepers can appeal.  Keepers are given the stark choice:

- tell us who was driving, even though there is no such requirement in law, or

- pay up, or

- be sued as keeper, having had no right to dispute the charge.

This despite the fact that the DVLA and BPA in 2014 - after the POFA had come in - warned all operators that they must not make access to appeal conditional upon naming the driver:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64401866/#Comment_64401866

LDast

You've got to laugh this note on page 21 of the joint CoP:

NOTE: Whilst the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 allow parking operators to issue a parking charge to a vehicle keeper or vehicle-hire firm, operators must not when issuing a parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time without offering them the opportunity to identify the driver. Where the keeper fails or refuses to identify the driver it may be used as evidence they were the driver unless the keeper is able to evidence they were not.

A pathetic attempt to transfer the burden of proof from themselves. Easily argued in court.

However, at 8.4.7, they specifically say that the keeper can appeal to their "Relevant Appeals" service.

Where the driver, keeper or hirer lodges an appeal with the relevant Appeals Service, enforcement proceedings and/or debt resolution must either not commence or, where commenced, must be suspended until the Appeals Service determines the appeal.

Also, in a note just below the above section it says:

NOTE: The parking operator is only required to deal with an appeal from the subject of the parking charge or their appropriately authorised representative, who may be required to show proof of their authorisation to the operator.

In all cases of an NtK, the subject is the keeper.

In Annex C, they go against establish case law with the following:

NOTE: The driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal.

I can't even be bothered to find contradicting statements from the tosspots that run these cartels but they are out there.

In Annex C it also states:

Appeals

The driver may appeal the parking charge in accordance with clause 8.4. However, where a NTK or NTH has been issued in accordance with POFA, the Keeper or Hirer may appeal the parking charge if the driver has not previously been given the opportunity to appeal.

Where no appeal is made within 28 days of the first notice then the right to appeal is lost, subject to 8.4.1(c).

NOTE: Where the Keeper receives an NTK (following an NTD), is not the driver and is unable to identify the driver, they may be able to appeal in accordance with clause 8.4.1©.

There's more but I cannot be arsed to dig any deeper at the moment. They are an embarrassment to humanity and the new Private Parking (Code of Practice) Act cannot come soon enough.

Fruitcake

The payment line is a prohibited premium rate 'phone number. 

fredblessed

VCS Ltd have gone rather quiet. I assume it went to debt collection a couple of weeks ago but have yet to hear anything. The one bit of information that I do think worth sharing is that Bristol Airport have confirmed that they are using red circles to issue directions rather than prohibitions and that they expect motorists to scan the QR codes displayed on the tariff boards. Their unconventional use of road symbols and expectation to scan QR codes may be helpful to anyone else invoiced for stopping.

Coupon-mad

Nonsense of a reply isn't it?