PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

VCS, office car park, no valid permit
gac
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



The driver has a parking "document" (which states it is not a PCN) from VCS which was left on their windscreen after the car was parked in the car park of a currently unoccupied office building on a business park. The "offence" is "Not displaying a valid permit" but there are currently no occupants to get a permit from, and no property owners contact details, only the letting agents.

Anything the driver/keeper can do here to appeal? It's the standard £60 within 14 days, £100 otherwise. There is no NtK yet there was just a red square piece of paper left on the car with a reference number on the back to look at the offence online, and then the rest follows in the post in a day or so. When it arrives, I'll redact and upload if required.

Thanks for any pointers.

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 21:39
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,557
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



So what do the signs say?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 22:10
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Good point. I don't have a picture of the sign handy (the "PCN" with the reference number is on my desk) but I'm 99% sure it's this sign - [removed]

I'm sure it's pretty standard signage for a non-chargable car park?

This post has been edited by gac: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 22:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,557
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



If that's what it is then it's not standard signage. What it is is a forbidding sign. It does not offer a contract to park for non permit holders, indeed to say that a contract to park exists when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. Without a contract in place they cannot agree to a charge nor can you breach the non existent contract.

It would be interesting to know who [aid them to put the signs up or they could just be chancing their arm to get some more income.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 23:14
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (ostell @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 22:42) *
It would be interesting to know who [aid them to put the signs up or they could just be chancing their arm to get some more income.

There were also workmen trimming back bushes and stuff today. My assumption is that the letting agents/landlords have finally had some interest in the building which has been empty for over a year, and have called in appropriate parties to "tidy the place up a bit", including VCS to patrol the car park as it is often used as an "overflow". And it seems to me that having previously shown very little interest in the overall business park, VCS have taken the opportunity to also remove all their outdated clamping signs on the entrance roads.

Sounds like I need to upload a pic of the actual sign so that the exact wording can be seen and commented on, so I'll make sure to do that. But is the gist of what you're saying that there can only be a contract formed if the driver DOES have a permit, therefore by not having a permit, the driver can't be a party to that contract and therefore can't agree to be charged?

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:31
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Here is a picture of the actual signage in use (I've removed the link to the other picture to avoid confusion).



This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:45
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,747
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Clearly a forbidding sign.

You won't get VCS to cancel you have to put up with the barrage of begging letters and possibly an (easily defended, VCS never take half way decently defended cases all the way) court case.

DO NOT respond to the on screen ticket but wait for the Notice to Keeper (assuming you are the registered keeper, its not a hire, rental,lease or financed car where the finance company may be the RK?).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:50
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 123
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



It seems to me that according to that sign, holders of valid permits are contractually obliged to display it, while non-holders have no contractual obligations imposed on them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:50
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,557
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



As said this is a forbidding sign as no contract for parkign offered to non permit holders. Yes the location on the PCN has to be correct otherwise how would the keeper know about it?

Here's POFA So look at paragraph 9

Since this is not considered a notice to driver then I would be tempted to wait until they issue the Notice to Keeper and see if they get the details correct.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 10:29
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Yeah, the keeper will respond. And I'll check out paragraph 9 of POFA, thanks for the pointer.

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MatchlessG80
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 13:39
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 21 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,620



It says on the front of these fake notice (or at least the yellow one I got last year - before they made them red, presumably to deflect attention from the fact that they look remarkably like parking charge notices) that 'only the person in charge of this vehicle is authorised to remove this document'. 'Authorised' by who I wonder? And what would happen to someone who removed it who wasn't authorised? Nothing like impersonating authority here.

VCS are poor on signs anyway, is there an entrance sign on the car park?

This post has been edited by MatchlessG80: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 13:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 23:49
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,235
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:50) *
It seems to me that according to that sign, holders of valid permits are contractually obliged to display it, while non-holders have no contractual obligations imposed on them.

I'm sure they had the smartest one in the whole office draft those terms, too...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 08:44
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (MatchlessG80 @ Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 13:39) *
It says on the front of these fake notice (or at least the yellow one I got last year - before they made them red, presumably to deflect attention from the fact that they look remarkably like parking charge notices) that 'only the person in charge of this vehicle is authorised to remove this document'. 'Authorised' by who I wonder? And what would happen to someone who removed it who wasn't authorised? Nothing like impersonating authority here.

VCS are poor on signs anyway, is there an entrance sign on the car park?

Yeah, this is a red version but the wording is exactly as you say. There are no signs on the entrance to the car park that I've noticed, the only signage I've noticed are the ones on the single building in question.

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 23:49) *
QUOTE (Sheffield Dave @ Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:50) *
It seems to me that according to that sign, holders of valid permits are contractually obliged to display it, while non-holders have no contractual obligations imposed on them.

I'm sure they had the smartest one in the whole office draft those terms, too...

--Churchmouse

I guess this would have to be the basis of the keeper's appeal, that the wording isn't 100% clear and the driver was under the impression that they had no contract with them since they weren't a permit holder and therefore the sign does not apply to them?

This post has been edited by gac: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 11:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 08:52
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,617
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You do not tellthem who drove
The keeper is you
The driver is unknown. The driver parked. The driver would have been misled by the signs, etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 30 Nov 2018 - 10:26
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,235
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



If the address they used wasn't wrong, forget about the letting agent's sign. Even if the address the PPC used was wrong, they would certainly have pictures of the vehicle at their location, and the signs, and the only possible issue with the address is that the location where the vehicle was parked must be included on the POFA-compliant notices in order for the PPC to hold the RK liable for the driver's parking charges. But I wouldn't rely on that kind of "technicality" in court--depending on the severity of the error a judge could easily decide it's de minimis and allow it.

And given all of the "I"s in your posts (which have not yet been replaced with "the driver") the PPC may decide to pursue you as the driver anyway, which means the POFA formalities would not be relevant anyway.

The legal issue with the signs is not that they are unclear; it is that they are clear and do not attempt to form a contract with any driver who does not hold a permit of parking. A contract is a two-way transaction: the PPC offers the driver something, and the driver promises to do (or not do) something in return. This is called "consideration". In the case of a "forbidding" sign, they have failed at the first hurdle: they have offered nothing to the non-permit holding driver, so there is nothing supporting the driver's acceptance of their offer (which is implied by parking there). What they wanted to do was prohibit trespassing (and get a nice £100 each time a driver does it), but under the law only a landowner or leaseholder can enforce trespassing--which the PPC almost certainly is not--and even then, the penalty for trespassing is "actual damages", which must be proven in court.

Wait and see what they send to the RK in the post.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



The NTK arrived in the post yesterday - do we still do the upload/redact thing, or do they all just say the same thing? There are only really two things that are of any note:

- it doesn't refer to a period of parking (as mentioned in PoFA), it just refers to a single moment in time, which I would consider non-compliant but I guess it's not that easy?
- the address is correct, the postcode is located 5+ miles away from the address given and refers to a totally different road. I presume this is irrelevant though as the address is correct so there's no claim that the vehicle wasn't in that location?

So the next step is for the keeper to appeal based on the signage being insufficient to form a contract with someone who does not hold a permit, and therefore no breach of the T&Cs can have occurred? And then.....what? There's no POPLA option, so just ignore further letters unless VCS try to take it to court?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:43
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,627
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



VCS belong to the kangaroo court opposition, IPC, so they won't offer POPLA.

Post here after redacting identifying details from the PCN, not forgetting barcodes, but leave dates and times.

Churchmouse: Your post needs editing.


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 20:00
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:43) *
VCS belong to the kangaroo court opposition, IPC, so they won't offer POPLA.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'll get a copy of it redacted and uploaded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gac
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 08:04
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 103
Joined: 9 Feb 2011
Member No.: 44,141



Been having trouble with the scanner, so I've taken some phone pictures (still perfectly readable, if a little wonky)

Page 1 - https://i.imgur.com/RCD2Vri.png
Page 2 - https://i.imgur.com/EMii5Xu.png

I hope I haven't missed anything in the redaction...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 17:44
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,235
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (gac @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 19:14) *
- it doesn't refer to a period of parking (as mentioned in PoFA), it just refers to a single moment in time, which I would consider non-compliant but I guess it's not that easy?
- the address is correct, the postcode is located 5+ miles away from the address given and refers to a totally different road. I presume this is irrelevant though as the address is correct so there's no claim that the vehicle wasn't in that location?

The "period of parking" concept arguably doesn't apply when the breach doesn't relate to a period of parking--their claim will be that the breach occurred immediately upon the driver's act of parking without authorisation--the "period" in such a case is more of a "point", which they have identified as the "Contravention Time".

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Sunday, 17th February 2019 - 14:53
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.