PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Letter Before Claim received from VCS
satchy_b
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 10:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



Hi,

I’ve had a Parking Charge Notice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

I’ve looked at the ‘Sticky’ posts. In one place it suggests it’s best to just ignore it, yet when I also looked on Money Saving Expert they suggest it could be better to be direct and write to the company saying that you’re not going to pay.

I have a couple of initial points I’m trying to get my head around, that's making me question myself...

1. My vehicle has been in the carpark several times before for no cost. The land has recently been sold which the driver didn't realise. After a couple of weeks I received the PCN. In my initial reply to them I’ve basically said that ‘the driver’ has parked there before and subsequently did not read any of the contractual parking notices. With this being the case how can the person driving have accepted the terms of the contract?

Their reply stated, “the signs on site meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practise. The signs are large, prominent and legible, so that any user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so. It can never be a defence to a claim in a contract of law to say, “I did not read the terms”, so long as those terms is reasonably advertised”.

This sounds crazy to me! In my mind having large signs or a “fair opportunity” does not mean they HAVE to be read. The driver was in a rush and didn't even think to look. And more to the point, how can someone agree and accept a contract they have no knowledge of? Are they therefore talking rubbish and trying their luck or am I missing something?

2. I have not told them who the driver was. They have stated the Protection of Freedoms Act. The 'sticky' suggests it might be worth giving the driver's name to get them off your back, but this doesn't feel right. Is this best? Or is it still better to just refer to 'the driver'?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

This post has been edited by satchy_b: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 06:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 48)
Advertisement
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 10:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
satchy_b
post Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 19:52
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 14:51) *
Loss isnt an argument


I'll take that out.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 14:51) *
Section 10 went away ages back. DPA2018 doesnt use that.


They've not contacted me for 2 years and it was still the Data Protection Act back then lol But I'll reword.

Is there a time limit in which they should have pursued me? 2 years seems like a long time.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dave65
post Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 21:37
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,887
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,368



They have 6 years
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 10:29
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Why oh why do you want to keep writing to them? Is it some irresistible urge or what?

Have we seen whatever was left on the driver's windscreen and have we seen the NTK, or are we just relying on your view?

Where is the hard evidence?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 21:07
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:29) *
Why oh why do you want to keep writing to them? Is it some irresistible urge or what?

That's what a number of people on here have advised.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 11:29) *
Have we seen whatever was left on the driver's windscreen and have we seen the NTK, or are we just relying on your view?
Where is the hard evidence?


I'm not quite sure where you're going with these questions. The wording on the NtK has previously been posted on here and confirmed to not comply with PoFA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 11:26
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



Hi All,

I sent the above letter with a few amendments following the last message on here. VCS didn't replay at all. I changed the 'Section 10 notice' to 'right to be erased' and they didn't follow the GDPR rules related to explaining what they're going t do with my data. Is it worth reporting them to the ICO?

I've now received a Claim Form form 'Money Claims Online, County Court Business Centre...'

I only have 14 days to reply.

Can anyone advise me on the best course of action?

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 11:37
Post #46


Member


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



QUOTE (satchy_b @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 12:26) *
...GDPR rules related to explaining what they're going t do with my data. Is it worth reporting them to the ICO?

Well you have your answer now. They are using the personal data to pursue (alleged) contractual obligation via legal channels.

QUOTE (satchy_b @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 12:26) *
I've now received a Claim Form form 'Money Claims Online, County Court Business Centre...'
I only have 14 days to reply.

Can anyone advise me on the best course of action?

Pay or defend it. Acknowledging the claim will give you more time to write and submit a defence.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 11:37


--------------------
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
satchy_b
post Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 12:04
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



VCS didn't abide by PoFA Act2012 Schedule 4. Is that enough of a defence now?

Do you know anyone/Is there anyone on here who has successfully defended a case when a Parking Company hasn't followed PoFA?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 12:14
Post #48


Member


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



Of course but they can still pursue the keeper on the basis they were driving.



QUOTE (satchy_b @ Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 13:04) *
VCS didn't abide by PoFA Act2012 Schedule 4. Is that enough of a defence now?

What do you mean by 'now'? You get one shot at a defence unless you want to pay £255 to amend it.

You put them to proof of everything. I would assume they've added the mythical £60 to the charge?


--------------------
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
satchy_b
post Wed, 26 Aug 2020 - 17:24
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,311



As rules/legislation seems to keep changing (or at least change from time to time) I wasn't sure if this was still reasonable defence.

If I wasn't driving they can't possibly prove that I was. Can the fact that I've refused to provide the actual driver's name be held against me?

Also, there is a counterclaim section on the form. How likely is it that I could win a counterclaim, for 'undue stress/harassment', if I wasn't driving they didn't follow PoFA? Would would be a reasonable counterclaim figure?

Yeah, £60 has been added, for the 'work' involved passing it to a 'debt collectors' (who is undoubtedly affiliated with them) who then just send another letter, before the original company starts pursuing it again. It makes my blood boil how they get away with (what feels like) adding in processes just so they have a reason to increase the costs. The charge now stands at £160+£25 court claim fee.
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:14
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