EXCEL PARKING claimform - Irregular NTD, Improper approach to DVLA and NTK outside of limits.***Claim Discontinued***

[bo54col]

My partners car was stationary in a car park on 06/01/2017.

There is a fee payable of 50p for 1 hours parking.

The driver of the car went to the machine, realised they didn't have change for it, and returned to the car. The car left. The Reg keeper wasn't driving.

 

When they got back to the car, a plastic envelope with a piece of printed cardboard was inside with the name MyParkingCharge.co.uk on.

 

It has a serial number on it and a date only, hand written.

It has no offence date, time, day, location, penalty details, appeal details or registration number of the car. As far as I can see, reading the rules - PoFA 2012, this is an invalid NTD.

 

The date on this card was 06/01/2017.

 

On 19/01/2017 my partner as the Reg Keeper, has received a Notice to Keeper (NTK) letter from Excel Parking.

 

 

This has all the day, date, time, location car registration and contravention details.

The issue date of the NTK is 13/01/2017, but was only received on 19/01/2017.

 

The NTK doesn't mention PoFA act. It states the appeal services is IAS, and Excel are a member of the International Parking Community - IPC.

 

The NTK has no ANPR information or pictures of the car or contravention.

 

I am composing an email to DVLA for the intentional abuse of the PoFA rules Excel and the DVLAs breach.

 

As the NTD is flawed (in my opinion) approaching DVLA is improper and the issuing of the NTK within 28 days means the Reg Keeper is not liable, only the driver.

 

Any thought for suggestion on how to proceed would be gratefully received.

 

NOTE. There is no ANPR on this car Park.

[Oddfellow]

This appears to be a ticketed "offence", so they are required by PoFA to serve the NTK between 29 and 56 days after the event. WAY before time. But Excel will doubtless try to argue they are not relying on PoFA.

As they have no ANPR evidence, they cannot prove that the driver was in the car park for more than the 10 minutes grace period stipulated in the industry guidance.

Also, it could be argued that the driver went to the machine, read the terms and conditions of the parking contract, and did not agree to be bound by them, so left. No contract was entered into, so no charges can possibly arise from a contractual charge (probably not enforceable in a P&D car park) or a breach of contract.

 

 

Others more expert will advise in more detail, but I suspect they will suggest you write to Excel to tell them that they have no grounds in law to claim, and you will treat any attempts to do so as vexatious.

 

 

Incidentally, this should be an anonymous forum, so if you have used your reg number as your screen name, I'd change it pronto!

 

 

Good luck!

[bo54col]

Nooooo Thats not my Reg.

 

Thanks for the reply. I look forward to more soon.

[bo54col]

I have checked the website that the invalid NTD asks you to go to. It has 8 pictures of the car and the pictures are dated and timed between 17:13:58 and 17:25:11.

 

there are 3 boxes to 1 appeal, 2. pay the ticket , 3 provide 3rd party information.

 

Was this available on the day ? I don't know, I took the piece of card to be a joke/prank so it was ignored, until the NTK came in.

[ericsbrother]

essentially they havent folowed the POFA so they cannot create a keeper liability.

That doesnt do away with a claim for a breach of contract

but they have to now prove who they have a contract with.

 

What to do?

well, you can wait and see what they do next

( threatogram probably but it might be another NTK if they realise they have screwed up)

 

 

or you can respond and tell them that they havent followed the protocols of the POFA so have no lawful reason to obtain your keeper details and that you will settle this out of court if they pay your £250 as per VCS v Philip (Liverpool dec 2016).

 

 

They wont be paying you but they wont be in a hurry to see the inside of a court

[ericsbrother]

whatever you do, dont phone them or email them. No filling out their website appeal either, it will just lead to more harassment

[bo54col]

Id never deal with the Devil, Thanks for the heads up .

[bo54col]

essentially they havent folowed the POFA so they cannot create a keeper liability. That doesnt do away with a claim for a breach of contract but they have to now prove who they have a contract with.

What to do? well, you can wait and see what they do next ( threatogram probably but it might be another NTK if they realise they have screwed up) or you can respond and tell them that they havent followed the protocols of the POFA so have no lawful reason to obtain your keeper details and that you will settle this out of court if they pay your £250 as per VCS v Philip (Liverpool dec 2016). They wont be paying you but they wont be in a hurry to see the inside of a court

 

 

im mindful of doing this in the appeal, but don't want to alert them to this fact in case they reissue the NTK. Or i shall just send an appeal letter then just pre 56 days inform them

[ericsbrother]

I would let the matter become timed out,

if they think they ahve got it right they wont be resending NTK, just reminders.

 

 

As you have the original ticket and NTK they cant suddenly decide it wasnt the NTK after all but then again I havent come across a parking co that is honest and fair.

[bo54col]

So don't even appeal ?

[ericsbrother]

not yet, you wait until the 56 days has expired and then tell them they are crap at their job.

[bo54col]

A complaint was made to DVLA regarding the release of personal date and breach of PoFA etc, below is their reply:

 

DVLA replied to the complaint email.

 

They state :

 

"Having reviewed the situation,

I should firstly mention that the correspondence placed on the vehicle at the time in question is not a NTD,

 

 

Excel Parking Services have introduced a process where instead of affixing a notice to driver on the vehicle,

they place a notice to make the motorist aware the terms and conditions of parking may have been breached and an official notice will be issued via the postal system.

 

 

Where a notice is not affixed to a vehicle, for the keeper liability provisions of PoFA to be utilised, a notice must then be delivered within 14 days of the event.

 

There is currently no requirement from DVLA that a notice to driver must be placed on the vehicle at the scene. Therefore any request for the keeper details may be submitted immediately"

 

Comments ?

[ericsbrother]

That is the biggest pile of horse **** I have ever seen.

 

 

The DVLA are now just mouthpieces for parking companies that dont want to obey the law.

 

Excel cant introduce their own system,

they either follow parsa 5 and 8 of the POFA or 6 and 9.

 

 

I cant understand why we employ civil servants who take it upon themselves to not only excuse the criminal behaviour of parking companies but act as their mouthpiece when doing so.

[silverfox1961]

Well, stone me! This car park is not ANPR controlled which does away with the 14 day rule. They affix a card to the screen which gives no details of any 'offence' then go on to send a NTK before the 28 days have expired.

As someone on the site physically saw the car, photographed it then slapped a card on it, why did they not place a NTD instead?

 

PoFA was introduced to protect all the parties and Excel are now circumventing the law by doing this. Any appeal would be pointless as Excel being members of the IPC who have this incestuous relationship with Gladstones, any appeal would fail. This needs testing in court and if you do a counterclaim for breaching the DPA, they will want to settle or discontinue.

[Oddfellow]

My question here is whether it MUST be ANPR evidence, or can another (e.g. hand-held digital) camera be used to gather evidence?

 

 

POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(7) requires that the evidence accompanying a 14-day NTK must comply with the following:-

 

 

"10(1)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe evidence which must accompany a notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) or paragraph 6(1)(b) (as the case may be).

(2)The regulations may in particular make provision as to—

(a)the means by which any prescribed evidence is to be generated or otherwise produced (which may include a requirement to use equipment of a kind approved for the purpose by a person specified in the regulations); or

(b)the circumstances in which any evidence is, or is not, required to accompany a notice to keeper."

 

 

How does this impact on the use of a camera other than ANPR?

[ericsbrother]

Like on street parking with local council CEO's they can use photographic evidence, or even a sworn statement that the parking event was witnessed and that is enough.

 

 

For council CEO's they can claim their personal safety considerations meant they didnt have to affix a ticket to the car.

The law refers to approved devices when there arent actually any ANPR cameras that are approved so it is really what is considered fit for purpose.

 

 

In EXCEL's case a man with a colouring book and some pencils is probably an approved device,

after all, they are never wrong, it is always someone else's fault their machines dont work etc.

 

Let us be clear as to why this has come about,

 

 

Simon Renshaw-Smith doesnt like the POFA a

s like fellow IPC members it causes problems for them

and their poor attempts at joined up writing

and therefore made a decision not to use it when pursuing motorists (or keepers).

 

 

However, this comes unstuck when people defend themselves and so another attempt to cretae a method that allows them the advantages of the POFA but none of the disadvantages, like having to produce some evidence.

 

 

Excel were the origianl exponents of the "disappearing ticket" wheeze and the altering of their camera clocks to make claims that were never justifiable. If these were as isolated as Simple Simon says why not use the law as it stands properly?

[ericsbrother]

the other reason the DVLA trot out their bull, they know that they could be in trouble with the ICO for allowing these bandits to misuse the KADOE system because it earns the bosses of the DVLA a brucie bonus

[Surfer01]

My partners car was stationary in a car park on 06/01/2017. There is a fee payable of 50p for 1 hours parking. The driver of the car went to the machine, realised they didn't have change for it, and returned to the car. The car left. The Reg keeper wasn't driving.

 

When they got back to the car, a plastic envelope with a piece of printed cardboard was inside with the name MyParkingCharge.co.uk on.

 

Please explain as in your first paragraph you state that the car left so we assume it left the car park. The following paragraph states when they got back to the car there was a plastic envelope. Where was the car when they got back to it? In the same car park or elsewhere?

[Oddfellow]

Does it mean they photographed the car in the time it took for the driver to go to the machine, fumble with loose change, and back to the car? 10 minute rule. Case dismissed (IMHO)

[ericsbrother]

as the prescribed fee wasnt paid and the driver left then there was no contract to breach.

 

 

If you follow the path of offer,

consideration and acceptance you will see that the supposed brech of conditons didnt occur and therefore nothing is owed to the parking co.

 

 

Most of the discussion here is looking at the behaviour of this company that is a bit of a tangent to the main purpose of the thread because we are incredulous at the behaviour of the DVLA more than anything.

 

So to cover the main points of Excel's actions so far

- the NTD isnt one as it fails to have the relevant information.

 

 

The NTK isnt POFA compliant whether using paras 8 or 9 as the driving force behind it and anyway as a contract is only formed when the driver accepts the conditions expressed on the machine and puts the money in to confirm ACCEPTANCE the contract is made. you cant be sued for window shopping.

[bo54col]

Well, stone me! This car park is not ANPR controlled which does away with the 14 day rule. They affix a card to the screen which gives no details of any 'offence' then go on to send a NTK before the 28 days have expired.

As someone on the site physically saw the car, photographed it then slapped a card on it, why did they not place a NTD instead?

 

PoFA was introduced to protect all the parties and Excel are now circumventing the law by doing this. Any appeal would be pointless as Excel being members of the IPC who have this incestuous relationship with Gladstones, any appeal would fail. This needs testing in court and if you do a counterclaim for breaching the DPA, they will want to settle or discontinue.

 

Silverfox,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

With whom do I take my DPA breach action against, DVLA or VCS ?

 

I may as well get that started.

 

as the prescribed fee wasnt paid and the driver left then there was no contract to breach. If you follow the path of offer, consideration and acceptance you will see that the supposed brech of conditons didnt occur and therefore nothing is owed to the parking co. Most of the discussion here is looking at the behaviour of this company that is a bit of a tangent to the main purpose of the thread because we are incredulous at the behaviour of the DVLA more than anything.

 

So to cover the main points of Excel's actions so far- the NTD isnt one as it faisl to have the relevant information. The NTK isnt POFA compliant whether using paras 8 or 9 as the driving force behind it and anyway as a contract is only formed when the driver accepts the conditions expressed on the machine and puts the money in to confirm ACCEPTANCE the contract is made. you cant be sued for window shopping.

 

The pictures on the website, taken by the 'attendant' show a time gap of 12 minutes. Beyond the 10 minute grace period. The driver assures me it wasn't that long. I have one word against pictures supplied by Excel. As they didnt have the correct change they returned to the car and found the ticket, then left.

 

Please explain as in your first paragraph you state that the car left so we assume it left the car park. The following paragraph states when they got back to the car there was a plastic envelope. Where was the car when they got back to it? In the same car park or elsewhere?

 

Surfer01,

 

Thank you for the reply.

 

To clarify, the driver parked the car, went to get a ticket, there was a queue, and when they got to their turn, the machine would not accept the coins they had for it and they had no further change. the driver returned to the vehicle, I'm told within 10 minutes, and found the card, which they believed to be spam due to the unprofessional nature of it. They then left the car park.

 

Does it mean they photographed the car in the time it took for the driver to go to the machine, fumble with loose change, and back to the car? 10 minute rule. Case dismissed (IMHO)

 

The pictures have times on them, which purport to be 12 minutes spaced from the first time to the last. The driver disputes this.

 

DVLA have been emailed again asking them to clarify there response. I shall send a complaint letter to the ICO when DVLA reply.

 

Li. Excel were the origianl exponents of the "disappearing ticket" wheeze and the altering of their camera clocks to make claims that were never justifiable. If these were as isolated as Simple Simon says why not use the law as it stands properly?

 

Are their any specific cases to refer to that show this ?

[silverfox1961]

I have searched for the list I saw somewhere and I can't find it however I can't recall Excel being guilty of this. Perhaps EB can enlighten us. I do know of another company, UKPC, who did this and had sanctions from the BPA but that is all. I will continue to look though.

[ericsbrother]

no, not the hand held devices but their dodgy systems at the Peel centre amongst others where they run them wrong on purpose ansd still expect punters to be happy to pay up. The IAS uphold this in their kangaroo court

[bo54col]

So, I asked DVLA how they formed the opinion it wasn't an NTD.... see their reply below.

 

 

"DVLA has been advised by the International Parking Community (IPC), that these notices are not Notice to Drivers. These notices have been introduced to make the driver aware that a breach of parking conditions may have occurred and that a notice will be issued in the post. This notice also provides the ability for this to be appealed.

 

 

The notice itself does not make any reference to a fee needing to be paid. If the driver (upon receipt of this notice) views the website, they will be provided an option to appeal or pay but they are not obliged to do so. If however neither of these options is taken by the driver, the parking company may then issue a notice to the keeper via the postal system. If the driver does appeal or pay this charge, the parking company would then have no need to request the vehicle keeper details from DVLA.

 

As previously mentioned, if there are any concerns with this process, the driver or keeper can raise this with the IPC"

 

 

So they where told it was an NTD, by a group of people who are self appointed, to self regulate, there own dirty business.

 

Im flabbergasted.

[ericsbrother]

so the DVLA now do what a pair of bandits tell them to do rather than obeying the law. report this to your MP and ask then to speak to the Transport Minister about this. I would also be telling Alex Shipp ( parking prankster) about this via his contact page on his web site (not blog) He sits on an advisory committee that deals with such things, although the panel is heavily weighted in favour ofunfettered money grabbing rather than application of the law, his voice does carry some clout.