PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Robin Hood VCS parking pcn, Need help please!!!
jenny12
post Sun, 15 May 2016 - 13:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



hi, i'm after advice please.

i have just spent the last day trawling through lots of posts on this and other sites and would appreciate help and advice with this...... do i pay? do i ignore?, do i appeal to VCS? or do i acknowledge as below?

As the registered keeper of a vehicle I recently received a PCN with photographic evidence from Vehicle Control Services, the Reason for the contravention was: Parked on a restricted bus stop / stand. VCS are pretty much asking me for £60 or the details of the driver.
The photo evidence shows a time lapse of 19 seconds.

(if needed and with a bit of luck i could post a redacted copy of the PCN)

Hand on heart i can honestly say that I am the registered keeper but was definitely not the driver of the vehicle.


As the RK of the vehicle do i have to give VCS details of the driver ....(from many posts it would appear that i do not)

from other similar posts (Aug 2015) i have read, the consensus is not to appeal but to send VCS a letter or email along the lines of...

"Sir, I am in receipt of the Notice to Keeper regarding your PCN *****
Unfortunately you have sent this to the wrong person.
It should have been sent to the driver as you are aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act is not available to you at an airport where bye-laws prevail.
Please desist from contacting me again.
"

Is this sort of reply to VCS still valid, or has there there been any recent changes that they could have the RK on ?

it has also previously been suggested sending a letter to the DVLA along the lines of.......

" I make a formal complaint that one of the companies who use your Registered Keeper database is abusing their position in relation to parking contraventions.
VCS operate at several airport sites which are covered by Bye-laws thus are outside the remit of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

For one alleged contravention by someone who drove my car, VCS obtained the registered keeper details to send a notice to keeper. Myself. Add your registration number.
Unless VCS has any certainty that the registered keeper actually was the driver they are on a fishing expedition for the name of the driver.
PoFA doesn't require that a registered keeper must name the driver so there is no legal reason why VCS should be allowed access to the DVLA database for instances of airport or other relevant land ticketing.
They do not imply that they have or will invoke PoFA in pursuance of the alleged contravention so should not be able to obtain personal details which are irrelevant to their legal status.
This matter is a based on a breach of the Data Protection Act where only those persons with a legitimate right to obtain that information should be able to do so. VCS has no legitimate right where they are unable to uphold the registered keeper to make payment for the driver.

Please advise if you are to prevent further such abuses.
"

any help / advice would be appreciated.
regards
jenny12

This post has been edited by jenny12: Tue, 17 May 2016 - 19:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 15 May 2016 - 13:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 15 May 2016 - 15:01
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Sounds like a good and appropriate response, both of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 15 May 2016 - 15:40
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I'd disagree on the DVLA one, they still have 'reasonable cause', so it's a waste of time.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Tue, 17 May 2016 - 19:07
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



Help Please! As I previously posted, I have now uploaded copies of the PCN.

I think I got confused....thought the PCN was a notice to keeper, which action would you recommend:

1) ignore the correspondence
2) reply to VCS with: "Sir, I am in receipt of your PCN *****
Unfortunately you have sent this to the wrong person.
It should have been sent to the driver as you are aware that the Protection of Freedoms Act is not available to you at an airport where bye-laws prevail.
Please desist from contacting me again."
3) Appeal as had cause to have stopped (mechanical fault on car which can support with evidence from the repair carried out), however this would inform them of the driver

From multiple posts on forums it looks as though VCS try to blag where their jurisdictions are, at this point should I be asking VCS how and where the photographic evidence was
gathered from the photos on the PCN, the location of the camera van, it was parked in the outside lane on approach to the roundabout, ??illegally parked?? or should I keep it simple as above?

4) Any other reply / template letter

Please can you advise ....we are already 6 days into the notification



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 17 May 2016 - 19:11
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



2 - but they will maintain they will pursue the keeper under the reasonable (?) presumption they were the driver.

If you can provide 'evidence' that the keeper wasn't driving then they may crawl back under their stone. Of course, might be worth mentioning the breakdown as this arguably frustrates any alleged contract - but they probably won't care.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Tue, 17 May 2016 - 21:49
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



send them one of these ?
http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/PPC%20byelaw...pro%20forma.pdf


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Thu, 19 May 2016 - 17:06
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



thanks for the replies .

I will run with option 2 from post no4, and then follow up with bama's suggestion if / when i get their next letter.

cheers jenny12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:10
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



Hi

i recently got another letter from VCS which i will try to upload in a minute!

Can you PLEASE ADVISE !!!!

basically they are stating bylaws are regarded as obsolete, and they are stilll coming after me as RK under reasonable assumption i was driving.....

Timeline is.....

contravention date:- **/05/16....day 0

PCN issue date **/05/16....... day8

RK reply letter to VCS posted **/05/16...... day 20

Latest letter from VCS dated **/06/16 ..... day 47


Q1 looking at the PCN flowcharts in the newbie section do the dates mean that VCS have not complied with any date cut offs
Q2 does the PCN i received act as a Notice to keeper?



In the VCS letter it states "Bylaws are not currently in use. The last set of bylaws relate to the old airport site and are consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company, the access roads are therefore private land.

I have searched online and have a PDF copy of the relevent bylaw document dated active from 27th November 2005.
Q3 I cannot find anything to say that the bylaws have been removed, are VCS just chancing their arm? the airport has always been on that site!


i am thinking of drafting a reply to VCS all as (R.K!),
a)asking them to provide me with a marked up plan of the airport site, showing the boundaries of the private area and highlight on this exactly where the contravention in the PCN took place (as i was not the driver).
b) send them a copy of the bylaws and ask then to provide a copy of documentation that the bylaws have been removed....not just in their opinion.
c) also include a copy of the http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/PPC%20byelaw...pro%20forma.pdf

Any comments / advice would be appreciated.

regards
jenny12

This post has been edited by jenny12: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:17
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



There are no timelines to pursue the driver (or the keeper on the presumption...) other than 6 years to commence proceedings.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:24
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



So what did you learn from the other threads you found, when you searched the forum for words like: 'VCS obsolete' from that template letter, to find the umpteen dozen other threads where people have been there, done that and responded to or ignored that exact letter?

Always search a forum before posting on one, that's what works best. Far better (for you) to search for each letter before coming here hysterically calling 'HELP PLEASE ADVISE!' every time you get a letter that you seem to think has been written especially for you. In fact,it's a common template.

Get searching, and read, and learn what to do, or reassure yourself that no steps are needed. And see for yourself that the sky did NOT fall in on people who ignored such drivel last year/months ago. Entering into protracted correspondence back to daft threatograms seems like a waste of your life - not something I recommend.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:28
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



copy of redacted letter from VCS...



CODE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 20:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



VCS obsolete as a forum search term, finds loads of results, get a cuppa and have a read.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:11
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106694


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:23
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



content deleted.
double post due to browser hiccup.

This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:37


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 22:11) *


Agreed.

VCS would be perfect recipients for a 'sod off, this is a section 10 DPA Notice' email, as would other firms who threaten litigation without foundation or liability.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:35
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



the byelaws have not been revoked and are in force.

If the airport authority chooses not to enforce them thats their choice - they are still in force nevertheless.

Come to think of it. what about the air-side part ?
I wonder what the relevant authorities would say about the byelaws not being enforced air-side. And according the VCS they are 'regarded as obsolete' and 'not enforced'

IIRC the relevant enabling Act imposes a duty on the airport operator. Especially air-side.
what with safety and all that being rather important.
One wonders if a well craftef complaint to the CAA about lack of cognisance for safety of the public air-side at Robin Hood would produce something interesting.

And just to give VCS' chips a thorough drenching, the Road Traffic Acts apply to the public roads at the airport.
see http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/20110214%20U...L%20Feb2011.pdf

No wonder they aren't rushing any of these cases to court.
I am sure there are 'torts-a-plenty' (tm pending) being committed - at the very least.

This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 - 21:36


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Thu, 30 Jun 2016 - 20:08
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



Hi all....
SchoolRunMum / Lynnzer........... I have been doing lots of searches on the forum, so many i am getting myself confused!
I like the idea of Lynnzer's sod off reply, but before i go with it, i would like to be sure if the two letters i have received (PCN and their follow up letter) do actually constitute a NTK?
In some searches it would appear that they do, especially as the "alleged contravention" was on a road picked up by "mobile traffic enforcement cameras",( therefore they have to correspond with the keeper as they dont know who the driver is?)
In other searches NTK's are clearly titled "Notice to keeper", am i correct in thinking that theses titled NTK are the follow up to parking tickets (notice to driver).

If this is the case i'll definitely be sending the "sod off" letter, just didn't want to go off quoting NTK if i hadnt actually received one!

many thanks for all help and advice received so far....Jenny.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 1 Jul 2016 - 06:15
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



There is no requirement to actually call it an NtK, like council tickets originating from cameras rather than Human Beans applying a 'ticket' on the 'screen the first missive is effectively both a PCN and an NtK.


--------------------
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 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 1 Jul 2016 - 07:41
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (jenny12 @ Thu, 30 Jun 2016 - 21:08) *
Hi all....
SchoolRunMum / Lynnzer........... I have been doing lots of searches on the forum, so many i am getting myself confused!
I like the idea of Lynnzer's sod off reply, but before i go with it, i would like to be sure if the two letters i have received (PCN and their follow up letter) do actually constitute a NTK?
In some searches it would appear that they do, especially as the "alleged contravention" was on a road picked up by "mobile traffic enforcement cameras",( therefore they have to correspond with the keeper as they dont know who the driver is?)
In other searches NTK's are clearly titled "Notice to keeper", am i correct in thinking that theses titled NTK are the follow up to parking tickets (notice to driver).

If this is the case i'll definitely be sending the "sod off" letter, just didn't want to go off quoting NTK if i hadnt actually received one!

many thanks for all help and advice received so far....Jenny.

Whatever it is you got will be irrelevant.
However the first letter you got will be a NTK so just go with sod off.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jenny12
post Mon, 4 Jul 2016 - 19:25
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 May 2016
Member No.: 84,331



Sod off letter sent!
Thanks for the help to date.... jenny12😠
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 14:04
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here