NtK from Excel/VCS - not PoFA compliant?

EyeSpyLikkle

Hi all,

I have read through the Newbies thread and countless other threads on this amazing forum, which has already helped me immensely for past issues with private parking companies, so I have a good understanding of what to do in most situations. I am recently in another fight with Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) which I believe is the same company as Excel. The car park in question is most definitely run by Excel but all correspondence, including the NtK, has come from VCS.

Anyway, I noticed that the NtK from Excel/VCS only mentioned the IAS as the appeal body, and I know this is a kangaroo court, so I didn’t bother appealing the parking charge with either VCS or IAS as I knew that I would most likely lose. So, I am essentially just waiting for an LBC to come at which point the real fight commences!

However, I took another look at the NtK from Excel/VCS recently out of interest, and I suddenly noticed that there was absolutely no mention of PoFA in the letter at all. Could someone take a quick look at the NtK for me and confirm that it is not PoFA-compliant, as there is no mention of PoFA at all?

I am in the process of trying all options to get this charge cancelled, including discussions with the landowner (not retail, unfortunately). I am arming myself with all the necessary arguments for the eventual LBC and defence, but just wanted someone else to take a look at the NtK.

If, as I suspect, the NtK is not PoFA-compliant, then I will kick myself for not doing an appeal earlier with VCS and the IAS, although there’s no guarantee that these appeals based on PoFA non-conformity would have worked anyway. In any case, I will put in a complaint with Excel/VCS and also likely complain to the IPC and my MP about these incredibly unethical practices. I am hoping that these complaints, along with my discussions with the landowner, might put off an LBC anyway, but we’ll see…

Thanks in advance for your help!

Here is the NtK (front and back):

.(Image removed by Forum Team)

Fruitcake

It doesn't have to mention the PoFA, but must have the PoFA wording, which it does in the last paragraph beginning with red text.

It would be very unusual for a VCS or Excel NTK to be non-PoFA compliant.

They are separate companies with separate company numbers registered at Companies House, both owned by the same ex-clamper and I believe Excel owns VCS. Whether there is any mileage in a data protection issue because the one shared personal data with the other would be for a judge to decide. It should be mentioned, but don't hold your breach.

Plan A is still always the best option, complaints to the landowner and your MP.

Where did the alleged event occur? It may have cropped up here before.

Coupon-mad

That is a POFA-worded NTK.

kryten3000

It does fail on the 'period of parking' (because they use entry and exit times, not the actual period of parking) but that's not enough unfortunately.

LDast

It is not PPSCoP compliant, which means that they have breached the KADOE contract. The NtK issue date is Tuesday 28th January. It was therefore deemed given or received on Thursday 30th January. It says:



The PPSCoP say that an appeal can be made within 28 days of "receipt", not "issue". Therefore the payment  can be made up to Thursday 27th January, not Tuesday 25th as stated.

Make a formal complaint to the DVLA showing this breach of the PPSCoP which means they have breached the terms of the KADOE contract and are therefore unlawfully handling your DVLA data.

Also, whilst they may have the correct PoFA wording, they also contradict that wording with this:



Even if the required wording from PoFA 9(2)(f) is included further down in the Notice to Keeper (NtK), the contradictory wording earlier in the notice still creates non-compliance.