East Midlands Airport - VCS LTD - Petrol Station

Coupon-mad

That's not a defence but you aren't at that stage yet. You'll use the Template Defence.

iWindmill

So it's still a defendable case. 

Coupon-mad

I have never seen one that isn't! They even muck up or give up 'PPC winnable' cases.

No worries!

iWindmill

So I'm trying to appeal my NTK and followed the instruction to their appeal website.

I have to select a 'reason' in their drop down box and none of it actually fits to what my appeal is! It's quite funny how most of them starts with "I", as in trying to get you to admit you were the driver.

More options below:

The best option I can see is "I did not park for the stated time" as a keeper.

James_Poisson

You are over thinking this, it doesn't matter they take no notice except in using anything selected with "I" to trap you in to confirming you were the driver. 

I would select "there was no signage........" it was dark the driver didn't see it it was unlit, they would have to prove otherwise.

ChirpyChicken

its irrelevant what you chose on this
the appeal will be declined regardless

iWindmill

So I've got a response from VCS and as we obviously expected, they rejected the appeal.

I'll give IAS a try, very interested to see what they say.

I thought I'd show you their response:

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on above.

Ralph-y

my thoughts ...... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

sorry ........

doubledotcom

If you're looking for the textbook definition of madness—doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result—look no further than VCS v Edward (2023), where this very same, bottom-dwelling, vexatious firm, has tried repeatedly to use the: "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." argument time and agin.

Perhaps it's because their 'legal advice' comes from Jake Burgess, whose reputation is so thoroughly discredited he's become a punchline among those of us forced to mop up the fallout from his guidance to these unregulated firms.

Read the transcript. You'll see exactly what I mean.  VCS v Edward (2023) [HOKF6C9C]

Coupon-mad

iWindmill said:

So I've got a response from VCS and as we obviously expected, they rejected the appeal.

I'll give IAS a try, very interested to see what they say.

I thought I'd show you their response:

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on above.

Please give IAS a try, if only for the greater good of getting another joke 'decision' from their non-impartial so-called pool of Assessors who "definitely are NOT the same rookie legals who represent PPCs in court"...

Even though they spout the same crap...

Please then add the decision to my IAS Decisions 2025 thread. Thankyou!