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 (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 10:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 10:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Legally, as long as the signs are sufficient then acceptance is by performance (parking) - whether they were actually read or not.

Have they really complied with PoFA? See here. (They never used to bother but of late have started trying)


--------------------
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
ostell
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 12:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



And edit you post so that the driver cannot be inferred. The PPC's have been known to print off threads for use in court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 13:40
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (satchy_b @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 11:14) *
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.


Like any sign or notice, they don't have to be read. But, if the driver chose not to as they did in this case, then they face the consequences.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 19:03


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 14:02
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They don't have to be read but as they were there and were available to be read then a contract is assumed to exist. No if no buts. It's case law.

You still haven't taken the advice to edit the your first post.

Identifying the driver is not normally advised. You have far more chance as the keeper in fighting these things. Post up the PCN with personal and identifying details removed so that other people can read it. Don't remove the dates.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 14:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 18:05
Post #6


Member


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



How on earth did that get into law? Does that mean a busker can put up a banner saying that anyone who listens to him agrees to pay him £20?lol

I crossed checked with the PoFA link. And the ticket that was taped to the car which said 'only to be opened by the driver' was not titled 'Notice to Driver' but only had the PCN ref, date, reg no, (all hand written) and a website address (which I later found out had pictures of the car in the car park on it).

There was no mention of the reason for the ticket, charges, or discounts. It was so poor it looked like it had been printed off someone's home computer.

Even though it was not marked 'Notice to Driver' surely any ticket taped to a windscreen notifying the driver should be deemed a NtD!? Would the limited information mean they've breached PoFA rules? i.e. Does all the same information have to be on both the ticket taped to the car AND the NtK?

This post has been edited by satchy_b: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 06:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 22:46
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



The 'please be warned' sentence misstates the date the 28 days starts from - have a look. A close look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 07:01
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 21 Oct 2017 - 23:46) *
The 'please be warned' sentence misstates the date the 28 days starts from - have a look. A close look.


Hi,

Thanks for your reply. I'm still a little uncertain though...

The NTK says "after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of Notice".

So this would technically be midnight on 16/09. Where as further up it states "28 days of the Issue Date..." (And the Issue Date is 15/09.)

Is this technicality really enough to invalidate the NTK? Do you know anyone who's got off on this technicality?

You help is much appreciated, I just can't believe they would have got that bit wrong (or for the guidelines not to have a bit of leeway in this area) and want to be sure before I use it as the basis of an appeal (or ignore).

Thanks

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 08:06
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The correct phrasing is:
warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;


The reference is to the day after the the notice is given, ie the day after you received the notice. The issue date was a Friday so the assumption, if posted by first class post, would be that it is delivered, ie given, on the 2nd working day after posting, which would be Tuesday 19th. They have removed 4 days from your time to reply. And they probably didn't use first class post but one of these other mail companies that can take many days to deliver.

Yes, it has helped to show an invalid NTK as it does not agree with POFA and reduces the time available to pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 08:08
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



What we know for sure is that they will reject any 'technicality' appeal.

The IAS is generally not worth bothering with - as they will usually try and find a creative way of suggesting that any minor transgression doesn't invalidate the PCN but we have seen them uphold some appeals.

Only a Judge can truly decide and most probably won't care too much, right or wrongly!


--------------------
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 Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 08:28
Post #11


Member


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



Hi All,

I have looked at all the photos they've supplied as evidence.

Following some further research I've noticed something else...

In the PoFA it says:
The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given. Or as the link above puts it "NOT EARLIER than 28 days after the vehicle was parked (where a Notice to Driver was issued)"

The attached photo 1 clearly shows a ticket on the car's windscreen.

1. Firstly, would I be right to assume that any ticket can be deemed a 'Notice To Diver', even if the ticket doesn't title itself that way?

I received the PCN only a week and a half after the incident.

2. Does this therefore mean they are in breach of this rule/law, and the PCN is invalid?

I have one slight concern which is that their sign (photo 2) says "CCTV/ANPR May Operate" and that they'll say the ticket was not a Notice to Driver and therefore under ANPR rules they were in the right to send the NTK so soon.

3. In my opinion, the other photos are clearly from a hand held camera and not CCTV or ANPR so feel it should be easy to prove they shouldn't be using ANPR rules (NOT LATER than 14 days after the vehicle was parked).

Would someone be kind enough to comments on my thoughts/findings?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 12:43
Post #12


Member


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



Nothing makes a pcn invalid. It’s merely an invoice.

What DOES change is whether the keeper is liable or not
Failing to folllow POFA means the keeper is NOT liable.

The dvla decided that notice given to the driver was NOT a ntd. Crazy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 13:02
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Is this by any chance residential parking at a block of flats or similar? If it is then get your lease out. Look for what it says about parking, the requirement to display a permit and requirement to pay if you do not.

The sign is also prohibitive. They are offering parking to Permiot Holders. If you are not a permit holder then it would be perverse to then charge you for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 13:55
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 09:06) *
The reference is to the day after the the notice is given, ie the day after you received the notice. The issue date was a Friday so the assumption, if posted by first class post, would be that it is delivered, ie given, on the 2nd working day after posting, which would be Tuesday 19th. They have removed 4 days from your time to reply. And they probably didn't use first class post but one of these other mail companies that can take many days to deliver.

Ostell, thanks for bringing the date issue to my attention.

I cant believe how they get away with (undoubtedly deliberately) misuse/mis-write the PoFA to pressurise people into paying.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 13:43) *
Nothing makes a pcn invalid. It’s merely an invoice.

What DOES change is whether the keeper is liable or not

nosferatu1001 - Sorry I meant does not following PoFA mean they'd struggle to get a court to uphold the terms of the contract and find me liable for the charge?

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 14:02) *
Is this by any chance residential parking at a block of flats or similar? If it is then get your lease out.

Ostell – it is behind a block of flats but the driver doesn't live there.

Ostell and nosferatu1001 - you both look to be very knowledgeable in this area.

What do you think is the best course of action for me from here?

1. Appeal via IAS;
2. Just ignore everything knowing that they have failed to follow the rules/law;
3. Write back to VCS explaining that I know they have not followed PoFA (not necessarily telling them what it is) and that if I receive anything further related to this I will deem it harassment? (Which someone on one forum suggested)
4. Or another course of action?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 19:51
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



My choice would be option 3.

Appealing to a IAS is a no no as they will most likely reject and it gives them somthing to wave ar the judge if it ever got to court
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 21:22
Post #16


Member


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



Option 3
Section 10 notice citing undue distress and harassment, and that the keeper isn’t liable therefore they lack cause to,process your data any longer. They MUST cease processing within 21 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Sun, 22 Oct 2017 - 21:44
Post #17


Member


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



Ostell and nosferatu1001, I'll write to them directly then.

Thanks for your input.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 11:47
Post #18


Member


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



Post your draft here FIRST for critique.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
satchy_b
post Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 14:04
Post #19


Member


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



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 23 Oct 2017 - 12:47) *
Post your draft here FIRST for critique.


I'm being slightly facetious in parts (and maybe it'd be better not to) but please let me know your thoughts.
Thanks

To whom it may concern,

In response to your letter dated 17th October 2017. Following further research I have discovered that you have misinterpreted the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and therefore have no right to reclaim any unpaid parking charges from the myself – the keeper of the vehicle.

Having seen the ‘Notice to Driver’, it failed to meet the requirements of ‘paragraph 7’; and your ‘Notice to Keeper’ failed to meet the requirements of ‘paragraph 8’.

I do not feel it should be the responsibility of the keeper to have to highlight your errors; however, if you are not already aware I offer you my services for £200. For this I will highlight where you have infringed the Act.

You may say that as you have already replied to my previous letter (which was not an ‘appeal’ and only a request for information) that you will not deal with this issue any further. However, as your industry is not regulated I know that any procedures you have in place are only there to give the impression that you are more ‘official’ than you actually are. Indeed, if you were regulated you would be facing a fine for how you have infringed the Act. Likewise, I am also aware that there is no need to write to the IAS and that any decision is fully at your own discretion.

With this being the case, I am also giving you a ‘Section 10 notice’ and objecting to you processing my data any further, so as not to cause me any further unwarranted distress. If you have passed my information to any other parties I expect you to also inform them and for them to stop processing my data.

Therefore, if I do receive any further correspondence on this matter whether from yourselves, or a third party (such as a debt collection agency), I will deem it to be harassment and it will be reported to the police.

Yours faithfully...

This post has been edited by satchy_b: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - 06:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 24 Oct 2017 - 15:06
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



Bear in mind any such letters could be put in front of the Judge...


--------------------
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

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 - 10:13
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