Vehicle Control Services, Gallagher Retail Park Scunthorpe |
Vehicle Control Services, Gallagher Retail Park Scunthorpe |
Mon, 22 Feb 2016 - 11:00
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Validating Posts: 39 Joined: 15 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,397 |
Hello to everyone and I'm hoping for some definitive advice regarding VCS of Sheffield who operate the site at Gallagher Retail park, Scunthorpe adjacent to the ground of Scunthorpe United F.C.
I have received one of their 'invoices' after straying onto the park in a company registered van in December. The circumstances are that at the time I was employed by an agency for a well-known automotive parts company, delivering to clients all over Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the East Midlands. Instructions had been given to meet one of the clients to drop parts with him near to the retail park, rather than at his business premises, as the parts were needed straight away. On reaching the general area it had been impossible to immediately locate the client and the van was driven onto the retail park with a view to safely stopping in order to contact him by phone and pinpoint him. I was and still am to some degree entirely unfamiliar with the area. The vehicle was a long wheelbase Sprinter van which is unsuitable to take into most car parks because of its size but as the area in question is a quiet road, bordered both sides by wasteland. Certainly as one enters the retail park, if there were any signs about stopping at the entrance, they were not very noticeable. Furthermore, there was no painted lines on the road surface or kerbs and I believe that any signs asking people not to stop or park are situated on the wasteland adjacent to the road but are not particularly clear. A stop was made within the park, to get out of the van and to make the necessary phone call, but having read the notice I then left the area, two or three minutes later minutes later, as shown by the 'invoice'. The company received in January an' invoice' from VCS and I informed my manager at the time that this was not a valid notice, such as from the Police or Council, and that she should inform HR to stonewall VCS who had no power to demand the driver's details. Unfortunately, and much to my anger, this advice was not followed and coming back from holiday ten days ago, I found my 'invoice' dated 4th February from VCS, as I was registered as keeper of the vehicle on that day. I might add that since the end of January, my contract with this company expired and I no longer work for them. Now I'm no expert on all this, which is why I'm asking for advice but from what I can glean from trawling through lots of threads is that VCS are not members of the BPA which means a Popla code is not an option to appeal but they use the not so Independant Appeals Service which are seemingly some kind of kangaroo court. My gut instinct is to totally ignore them and wait for the deluge of junk mail that will inevitably follow but as I believe things have changed somewhat regarding appeals etc, I ask your advice. I certainly have no intention of paying a penny for a necessary two minute stop on a deserted back street road on a Tuesday lunchtime in December. I can understand that because of the proximity of Scunthorpe United, on match days some kind of restriction on parking might be suitable for this area but even so asking for £100, or £60 if paid quicker, does not represent an accurate charge for parking for two hours, let alone a stop of two minutes as borne out by their ,photographic evidence'. Your comments and advice are greatly appreciated. This post has been edited by Yogi_B: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 - 14:57 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 22 Feb 2016 - 11:00
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 10:14
Post
#121
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
I wouldnt add that - its i speculation. You could expand upon this with FACTS about how often they were asked to produce this, and invite the court to draw the obvious conclusion as to why they would be unwilling to provide such a simple document.
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 10:29
Post
#122
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
I wouldnt add that - its i speculation. You could expand upon this with FACTS about how often they were asked to produce this, and invite the court to draw the obvious conclusion as to why they would be unwilling to provide such a simple document. Ok thanks, I'll have to go back through my letters to them and count up (see below) but otherwise is ok to send? 13. Despite numerous requests (no fewer than 5), for the Claimant to supply a copy of their contract or authority (even a redacted one), they have thus far refused to and have failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. This post has been edited by Yogi_BB: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 10:34 |
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 08:50
Post
#123
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
...the court is invited to draw the obvious conclusion that the claimant lacks authority to operate from a landowner capable of forming a contract.
|
|
|
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 09:26
Post
#124
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
A contract with a dormant company can still be valid if it's a subsidiary and the parent company is using the dormant co as trading name.
Any transactions would then be accounted for and filed with the parent company. |
|
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:51
Post
#125
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
...the court is invited to draw the obvious conclusion that the claimant lacks authority to operate from a landowner capable of forming a contract. Thanks for that Nosferatu, I included that. Defence was sent to Northampton and has been registered as received. A few days later a DQ was received from BW Legal together with a letter saying that their client intends to continue with the claim. Almost two weeks have elapsed and nothing has (i.e. a DQ) CCBC has been received to respond back. I've contacted the court and to date they have not received a DQ from the claimant. I was advised to just wait, is this correct advice or should I just download a copy DQ fill it in and send it straight back? A contract with a dormant company can still be valid if it's a subsidiary and the parent company is using the dormant co as trading name. Any transactions would then be accounted for and filed with the parent company. Would they not have to produce a proper paper trail at court though to prove that was the case? This post has been edited by Yogi_BB: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:53 |
|
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:18
Post
#126
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
No, youre gettign the process wrong
The claimant tells the court to proceed or not If yes, then BOTH sides, at the same time, complete their DQ. You dont need the corut to send you a DQ. Just download for N180 and fill it out, sending it to claimant AND court. To redivis comment - yes, it just ads another hurdle. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 17:18
Post
#127
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
It’s been almost 18 months since my defence to this original charge of ‘no stopping’ was submitted to Northampton and having heard nothing more and having life in general to deal with, I had genuinely pushed this to the back of my mind. However today, our friends BW Legal, popped up again, this time with a letter marked ‘Without Prejudice Save As To Costs’ and offering to settle with a reduction from £250 to £180 providing that the settlement is made before 4pm on 7th April.
A phone call to CCBC reveals that the claim has been ‘stayed’, although I must admit that I didn’t remember to ask on what date. They did say that the claimant would have to pay a fee of £100 to reinstate the case. I’ve no doubt that VCS and also BW Legal might well be worried about loss of revenue in the current lockdown, so are resurrecting old cases that were on the backburner to try and get cash in. I’m still, if necessary, prepared to go to court, so have no intention of settling with them. Is this perhaps a ploy by them to see if the defendant has moved on and a no reply means they would resurrect with the hope of getting a default judgement? Should I bother to reply to them saying that my position has not changed, or should I just ignore? |
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 17:21
Post
#128
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,505 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I would and remind them they are attempting to claim 'initial legal costs' which is widely being ruled as an abuse of process...
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 17:56
Post
#129
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,053 Joined: 20 May 2013 Member No.: 62,052 |
Often (although not always), such an offer is a last-ditch effort to extract cash from you before they drop the case.
|
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 18:48
Post
#130
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,505 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Often (although not always), such an offer is a last-ditch effort to extract cash from you before they drop the case. That as well. £180? Yeah right. This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 18:48 -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 18:57
Post
#131
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
Thanks for your input Jlc and Dave.
I'll cobble a letter together over the weekend but it's doubtful whether it'll get to BWL before their artificial, imposed deadline of 7th April. Letter dated 31st March, envelope date stamped 1st April (sent 2nd class), arrived 3rd April doesn't leave much time? |
|
|
Fri, 3 Apr 2020 - 18:58
Post
#132
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,505 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
It's in their pipeline... What happens next is likely to be predetermined.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Sat, 4 Apr 2020 - 10:23
Post
#133
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,124 Joined: 8 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,842 |
Thanks for your input Jlc and Dave. I'll cobble a letter together over the weekend but it's doubtful whether it'll get to BWL before their artificial, imposed deadline of 7th April. Letter dated 31st March, envelope date stamped 1st April (sent 2nd class), arrived 3rd April doesn't leave much time? Don't be rushed by their deadline. The claim is stayed. They're trying a last-gap go at extracting your money, not telling you of the actual court position. I'd just regularly call the CCBC to check its status. |
|
|
Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 14:28
Post
#134
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
Hi,
I’m revisiting this thread as the 6 year ‘anniversary’ of this (non-) parking event was reached last week. In the 18 months or so since I last posted on this, BW Legal made one more attempt at getting some payment in May of last year by slightly reducing the figure- I totally ignored this. A call to Northampton a couple of weeks ago confirmed that no more activity had come from the complainant and it would cost them £100 to resurrect the case. I expect that some may think me slightly premature (since VCS didn’t start corresponding with me personally until February 2016), but I’m calling victory on this particular saga against VCS, as I am fairly confident that I have heard the last from them about this matter. In view of this can I take this opportunity to thank all the contributors to this thread who offered their advice (FOC) and helped me compile what amounted to a robust defence against these thieving charlatans. In no particular order Nosferatu, Ostell, The Rookie, Sheffield Dave, School Run Mum, Umkomaas, Jlc, Redivi (I apologise if I’ve missed anyone out) I can’t thank you all enough for your help and support. Can I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year- keep up your invaluable work in the years to come. I will continue to monitor the forum from time to time and will be happy to contribute to any crowdfund actions that may assist against the PPCs by way of a thankyou. |
|
|
Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 20:10
Post
#135
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Annoyingly ince started, in theory they can unstay the claim at any point - it's not time barred by default. But thanks for the update, good to know they've wasted yet more money!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 15:11 |