PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Another PCN at Bristol Airport
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 27 Feb 2020 - 12:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



[attachment=69798:VCS_appe...2_260220.pdf]
Good afternoon,
I am dealing with another PCN from our friends at VCS. This one relates to a Contravention on 25/10/2019 with a PCN/NTK sent to the registered keeper (Ford) on 22/01/2020! I have not yet received a Hirer Notification but have let them know that "I am not the driver and their is no legal requirement for me to identify the driver, as they have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 POFA" about giving notice within 14 days etc.
The reply I had back (attached) says, as expected, the appeal is rejected and that I have confirmed in my appeal that on the date in question I stopped my vehicle on the access road. Quite how they worked out it was me I don't know.

Next steps is to pay £60-£100 or appeal to IAS. I am not going to do either.

My question is what happens next? I guess it will be letters from them/solicitors asking for money, which I will ignore.

Many thanks,
W_F_T
Attached File(s)
Attached File  VCS_appeal_reply_260220.pdf ( 1.01MB ) Number of downloads: 258
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 27 Feb 2020 - 12:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 07:47
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Who exactly is the defendant on the claim form? The limited company? You? A named director of the company? Or what?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 08:32
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



The defendant is a Ltd Company, I am a director of the Ltd Company defending the claim on behalf of the driver of the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 09:01
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,053
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



Could you post up a copy of the claim form - in particular it will be interesting to see their legal theory of why the company is liable. Obviously a company can't be the driver, and VCS haven't satisfied POFA to transfer liability. I'd speculate that they will be relying on agency - that the the driver entered into the parking contract while on official company business, and that the company is thus vicariously liable. Or they may just not have noticed that the defendant isn't an individual.

So for example, the company is possibly liable: a salesman driving a company car to visit a client, or a van "on the job".
Definitely not liable: the salesman or white van man taking their family out somewhere on a Sunday in the company vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 09:10
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



QUOTE (white_ford_taxi @ Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 09:32) *
The defendant is a Ltd Company, I am a director of the Ltd Company defending the claim on behalf of the driver of the vehicle.

No, you're defending the company. Not anyone else, the company.

If the driver wasn't on comp ah business then law of agency does nOT apply.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 13:45
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



They haven't mentioned anything in the particulars about law of agency. They state " The Claim is for breach of contract for breaching terms and conditions set on private land."

They are claiming, £160 plus £35 Court Fee and £50 Legal Representative's cost. £245 in total.
I understand the £60 is an attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process ( Excel Vs Wilkinson 2 July 2020).

This post has been edited by white_ford_taxi: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 10:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 13:50
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



That isn't the full particulars of claim. Give us the full particulars of claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 14:58
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



They state:
"The Claim is for breach of contract for breaching terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendants's vehicle, **** ***, was identified in the Bristol Airport on the 25/10/2019 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 9 Sep 2021 - 15:37
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Finally


Ok, so as you can see, you're not defending on behalf of the driver, as they're not named on the claim!
They're claiming the company was the keeper "and/or driver" which is of course nonsense. Shows how this is a badly copied template. Given VCS can never hold the keeper liable x if you check the notice to keeper it states they simply presume the keeper was the driver - the D points out the RK eas
- not the keeper and
- could not of course be the driver.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 12:11
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I understand the Keeper could not possibly be the driver and they cannot transfer liability to the keeper due to the failings under POFA.
However, the company is the keeper of the vehicle. I don't quite understand where you say above "the D points out the RK was - not the keeper?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 15:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The company was not the keeper either. Keeep is an individual
Registered keepe, yes, but not the keeper

Have yiu checked the ntk yet? To confirm it just assumes the RK was the driver?

Who kept hold of the keys? They're the actual keeper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 17:50
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I think I understand, thank you.
I am still yet to receive a NTH from them (adds to defence), but from a copy of the NTK they sent to Ford it states:
"We may persue you (the Keeper) on the assumption you were the driver, for any unpaid balance of the parking charge."
I was going to use the Suggested template defence on MSE from "Coupon-mad" but it says - NOT FOR DEFENDANTS WHO ARE COMPANIES UNLESS THE DRIVER WAS USING THE CAR IN A WAY THAT WAS UNCONNECTED TO THEIR WORK DUTIES.
Do you know why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 14 Sep 2021 - 19:36
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You said you got something in the name of the company did t you?

That's the "ntk" or nth. Whatever. Doesn't matter the exact name.


Yes, law of agency
Makes a company responsible for their employees actions while on company business.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
white_ford_taxi
post Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 08:58
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I have got a "Demand for payment", "Final Demand for Payment", and 2 "LBC's" addressed to the Company, but no NTK/NTH.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 15 Sep 2021 - 21:42
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Irrelevant. They're holding the company liable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 08:07
Post #35


Member


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



They are claiming they have invoiced the company - as you are clearly aware of a demand for money then how that demand was received is academic, there is no PoFA here at all, so ignore fancy titles as they are meaningless.

Focus on
1/ No keeper liability under PoFA
2/ Forbidding signage
3/ Always add in standing to bring a claim

Your Post #25 could help them with respect to claiming agency, I'd edit that bit out!


--------------------
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
white_ford_taxi
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 10:45
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



I have edited as advised, thank you.
I am a little out of my depth here. You say there's no PoFA here at all, but then use PoFA to state there's no keeper liability?
Also, what does "add in standing" mean? Is that adding extra costs (£60) to the claim?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 10:52
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



Standing = challenging whether or not they have the standing to claim for parking charges on that site (i.e. whether they have a valid contract with the landowner). The MSE Forum has an example of how to word that in their template defence: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discus...-admin-costs/p1


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 12:24
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



QUOTE (white_ford_taxi @ Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 11:45) *
I have edited as advised, thank you.
I am a little out of my depth here. You say there's no PoFA here at all, but then use PoFA to state there's no keeper liability?
Also, what does "add in standing" mean? Is that adding extra costs (£60) to the claim?


The pofa term "notice to keeepr" is irrelevant as they don't use pofa. But it would be good for you to show the document

The only mechanism they can use to hold a keeper liable is pofa.

The company is not the keeper. I presume you can state that the "company". Does not hold the keys overnight? Be very clear please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 13:22
Post #39


Member


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



QUOTE (white_ford_taxi @ Thu, 16 Sep 2021 - 11:45) *
You say there's no PoFA here at all, but then use PoFA to state there's no keeper liability?

Because PoFA does not apply to your case there is no keeper liability.
Also because PoFA does not apply there is no need for the notices that would be required for them to comply with PoFA.

The parking charge is an invoice, a bill, for parking. Parking in a manner that didn’t qualify for cheap/free parking (allegedly) triggered the invoice. Think of it like premium parking.


--------------------
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
white_ford_taxi
post Fri, 17 Sep 2021 - 10:09
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41
Joined: 21 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,964



DWMB2 - I couldn't see where in the template defence it says about add in standing to bring a claim.
I didn't think i was able to use that template anyway, as i am defending on behalf of a Company.

Nosferatu1001 - Which document are you referring to? Schedule 4 of PoFA?
The Company will hold the vehicle keys at night. When the driver has finished their duty, the vehicle will be parked in our yard and keys hung up.

The Rookie - Thank you for explaining.

I am concerned they will win going by "The law of agency", I am struggling to find the time to defend both cases they have against me and will have to travel to their local court for the hearing.
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:36
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