Letter Before Claim received from VCS |
Letter Before Claim received from VCS |
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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 10:14
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 19:52
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,311 |
Loss isnt an argument I'll take that out. 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 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 21:07
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 2 Oct 2017 Member No.: 94,311 |
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. 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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
...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. 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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:14 |