Vehicle Control Services, Ticket in Sheffield Options

[tonybaloney]

I got a ticket from this lot a couple of weeks ago, in Sheffield. Me and a mate were working and had my van parked in my clients parking spot, which is controlled by VCS. I'd had a permit and a note on my dash, saying where I was working and even the operatives number, who'd said we were ok to park there a couple of weeks earlier.
We'd been there all day, without a problem aswell as all the previous day. We nipped out to the suppliers and came back about an hour later to get some paperwork signed.
The permit and note must have fallen off the dash, while we were out without us seeing. When we came back to the van, about 20 minutes after parking up, there was a ticket on it asking for the usual extortionate fee of £80.
I sent an email in, telling VCS of the circumstances. As expected, they said that the ticket would stand and gave me another 2 weeks to pay, which ends on 21/4/11, or it would go up to £120.
I know all the advice says to ignore the notice and don't acknowledge them, but if they tracked down my company as the registered keeper, they'd pay the fee and take it out of my wages aswell as a nice little "admin fee".
I can't make my mind up if the notice is filled in correctly, as the contravention code is only filled in on the bottom section of the ticket.
Any advice on this would be a great help.

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

You would want to be sure of your basis though - ensure there is no landowner the parking company is contracted to, as would be common if it is say a mixed retail site.

[tonybaloney]

They've named the company on their letters, which is how I found out who it was. The company were a management company, who I presume managed it for the landowner. It's not retail, just offices.
I'm guessing that the fact that VCS were running it for a management company, makes it even less likely that they had the right to take legal action. If I ask who they had a contract with and what rights the contract gave them, they'd have to name them and so I could confirm it.

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed, however remember you haveto disclose your defence in advance, usually at least 14 days before the hearing, so would want to have the informaiton in place by then

Use the "good faith belief" that their claimed contract with the management company (see letter X where they confirm the company who hired them) to no longer be valid because on X date Y company went into liquidation. Confirm the rules on this, as I said, I am not 100% but I thought any company in liquidation couldnt hold contracts any longer.

[tonybaloney]

Thanks again, Nosferatu. I've drafted a first attempt at my response, so I'd appreciate any feedback on it, please:

I write in response to your letter, dated DATE OF LETTER. As this letter does not conform to the format required by the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, Annex A Para 2, I require confirmation that you deem it to be such.

Should you consider this letter to be a compliant Letter Before Action, I will be making a Section 18 request for all relevant information and supporting documentation. This will consist of, but may not be limited to:

I. Clarification of which client you are acting for. You refer to two different clients in your correspondence.
II. The name of the Landowner for whom your client was acting at the time.
III. What act or omission gave rise to cause of action.
IV. Copies of signage in place at the time.
V. A full, un-redacted copy of the contract between your client and Landowner or Management Company, giving them permission to instigate legal action, in accordance with the BPA Legislation Guide To Operators which applied at the time.
VI. Is this claim based on a contractual agreement, breach of contract or trespass?
VII. Justification for your reference to ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis and the relevance to this claim.

To clarify the first point in the letter, you state “we are yet to receive payment and/ or a response to our letter”. This refers to your letter dated DATE OF LETTER. This letter was responded to by email on DATE OF EMAIL by email; a confirmation email was sent from yourselves immediately afterwards.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have now submitted complaints to the SRA and CSA, as advised in my previous letter. Should I not receive a correctly formatted Letter Before Action within 14 days, I shall be forwarding this latest letter as further evidence in the investigation being carried out by the SRA.

Yours Faithfully

This post has been edited by tonybaloney: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 - 17:50

[nosferatu1001]

Any reason you're referring to annex A?

When copying and pasting, check that the information is correct 😄

Part 18.

[tonybaloney]

Thanks again- I wondered about the Annex part, as I couldn't find it anywhere on the document.
I noticed, after my last email to them, that they didn't provide an automatic confirmation like the first time. Does email have the same same consideration as snail mail ie if it was sent, it must have been received or is it better to just mail it?

[nosferatu1001]

If they accept documents by email then retain proof of sending. Cc it to another address.

If you have doubt, use first class post.

[tonybaloney]

A quick update on this- I've now had replies from the CSA and SRA to say that they're both investigating BW. Just in case anyones keeping count.
I suppose their file is getting quite big now.

[nosferatu1001]

Fingers crossed 😀

[Lynnzer]

A quick update on this- I've now had replies from the CSA and SRA to say that they're both investigating BW. Just in case anyones keeping count.
I suppose their file is getting quite big now.

There's more than a few worms in their can for sure.

[tonybaloney]

Hello again- The latest update on this, is that BW have replied to say that they don't agree with my complaint to the CSA. Surprise surprise!!
They've given me 14 days to respond, otherwise they'll assume that I'm happy with their resolution and update their records accordingly. I'm going to respond, as again, they've referred to a different amount to the original PCN (£100 instead of the original £120) and made further reference to Beavis- stating that PCN charges "serve a legitimate commercial interest".
A couple of things that I'd just like to check before I reply:

1- By replying, does this still restrict them from any legal action, as it will still be in dispute?
2- Am I right in my understanding of ParkingEye v Beavis that there was a legitimate commercial justification as it was in a Shopping Precinct, so was implemented to ensure a higher turn over of customers for the shops? My PCN was for a permit which wasn't displayed in a private parking space whilst I was working for the company that leased the space.

Any advice is gratefully accepted, as usual.

[emanresu]

a legitimate commercial justification

In the claims I've seen, the "legitimate commercial justification" they refer to is the PPC's and not the clients. Why not ask them to explain the "legitimate commercial justification" in more detail.

Since BW Legal have been churning these out with this "error" in it, it appears they don't understand the Beavis case or are even bothering to quote it correctly. And the comment about the CSA is just par for the course.

[tonybaloney]

Thanks emanresu- I asked them to explain their reference in my last email to them and it looks like you're right- they don't understand it. They just repeated their original line.

[nosferatu1001]

Indeed, ask them for a detailed breakdown

Complain to the CSA that you asked the CSA to investigate your complaint, not the company you are complaining about. State that the response is incoherent, rambling and fails to adequately address a single point raised, even making basic errors such as the amount under dispute. Ask, again, that THEY investigate your complaint.

[tonybaloney]

I'll do that- thanks Nosferatu.
Am I right to assume that no action can be taken until this is fully investigated? I've got about 3 months until the 6 year limit, which by my reckoning is about another 3, maybe 4 letters.

[Lynnzer]

Going right back to basics, you seem to say you were parked on a space which was the property of your client.
In what way? Are they leaseholders with allocated parking spaces?

Might be useful to find out and see if they can provide the appropriate wording from their lease that mentions parking.

[tonybaloney]

That's right, Lynnzer. The problem is that they are the local branch of a nationwide chain, so it might be tricky to find a copy of their lease.
I did find out though, that the landowner looks like their company was wound up "if that's the right business term" before the ticket was issued. That should surely mean that VCS's contract was terminated aswell.

[nosferatu1001]

Yes. If the company went into liquidation before the ticket was issued, as far as I am aware no contracts will be valid.

[southpaw82]

Am I right to assume that no action can be taken until this is fully investigated?

No.

[emanresu]

The problem is that they are the local branch of a nationwide chain,

Is this Mainstay?

In addition, they will have a standard contract so get a copy of that.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 - 06:10