PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - VCS in Sheffield - Soft appeal rejected
BigAlC
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 11:45
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Hi all,

I've joined here from MSE in the hope some legal eagles can give me a bit of a pointer regarding the appeal to the entirely "unbias" IAS board.

Here is the link to the MSE topic, but I'll copy the latest post and add some information below;

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5228413

QUOTE
So, as for the pcn. It has been issued under a code 81. "Parked in a restricted area of a car park".

As you can see from the pictures above, there is no signage to dictate that the area is restricted, neither on the floor markings or on posts. This alone makes this ticket null and void in my opinion but obviously they thought otherwise by responding on this point saying;
QUOTE
"As per the statement made by our patrol officer, your vehicle was parked in a restricted area. Specifically, they stated, "not parked in a bay or space, parked in a service bay". The signs on site clearly state, "Park correctly and only between the lines of a single marked bay". It is not unreasonable to expect motorists to check signs in situ before leaving their vehicle.
.


I think they have caught themselves out there, as he says the patrol monkey has said one thing, and their own sign says another. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It goes on to say;
QUOTE
Your vehicle was not parked in a parking bay, and the signs on site indicate that any area that is not a parking bay may not be used for parking. Accordingly, this notice was issued correctly for a breach of the Terms and Conditions displayed on site and quoted above, and the charge will therefore stand. Whilst we appreciate what you have stated in your correspondance, we must advise you that it is the landower's decision whether or not to have lines warning motorists. As the signage in the car park is deemed as adequate, there is no need for lines warning motorists as well.

Personally, I still think this is rubbish. Again though if anyone can enlighten me that would be wonderful.

I also pulled up the charge amount and questioned its value, here is the response;

QUOTE
We note your comments in relation to the amount of our PCN charges and we can confirm that they represent a sum for liquidated and ascertained damages in respect of a breach of the "parking contract". Those charges have been calculated in advance and were clearly set out on the signage. When a motorist parks in breach of the terms and conditions of parking, a loss is incurred by us as incorrect parking prevents the efficient management of the car park. If we are unable to regulate the car park, our clients would not require our services and the company would cease to exist. It is therefore justifiable that the operator seeks to enforce its terms and conditions.


I will be sending another letter to them today, asking for a fully compliant VAT invoice to be sent to me with a breakdown of all charges applied to create the £100 charge. We shall see what they say.


So I will have a look for a template, unless someone wishes to provide something which might stand a chance of getting the PCN thrown out?

It will basically be along the same lines as my original appeal of contravention did not occur due to lack of restricted area signage and ergo lack of signage stipulating where restricted areas are and disproportional charges.

I understand that once this letter is fired off, unless I get a court order or similar I simply ignore further letters, although there is an option to deny the "collection agency" and refer them back to VCS.

Oh as a side note, I'll be getting a witness statement from one of the business owners to add ammo to my rebuttle.

Cheers for any help anyone can offer. I realise it's a mammoth first post and I've probably left loads out, but please ask any questions you need answering.

Al.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 28 Apr 2015 - 11:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 28 Jul 2015 - 18:56
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



The DRP letter has arrived demanding payment. Scary times.....

So next steps are to write once, deny the debt, further contact is harassment, cease or I will seek damages etc etc?

As a side, I must chase up my access request, and got a response from N Clegg who seems very positive about it, raised it again at house of commons apparently, offered further help if required.

The portfolio expands further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 06:18
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



QUOTE (BigAlC @ Tue, 28 Jul 2015 - 19:56) *
The DRP letter has arrived demanding payment. Scary times.....

So next steps are to write once, deny the debt, further contact is harassment, cease or I will seek damages etc etc?

As a side, I must chase up my access request, and got a response from N Clegg who seems very positive about it, raised it again at house of commons apparently, offered further help if required.

The portfolio expands further.


The second DR+ letter has arrived with notice of intended court action.

Usual rubbish about if I don't cough up then they will advise court. I never bothered engaging with DR+ after the first letter, as there seems to be a consensus that it's not worth while. Is that still the case?

DVLA conveniently "lost" my request for info regarding who accessed my data, so sent another recorded delivery letter which was delivered last week. Couple of weeks to wait for a response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 10:14
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You should have sent a debt denied letter. You would be on stronger grounds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Fri, 14 Aug 2015 - 11:51
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



I can see the reasoning, and it's never too late to send such a letter as I'm still steps away from the LBC letter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Thu, 20 Aug 2015 - 05:57
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Debt denied letter sent.

Have done as much as possible to get them to mitigate their costs. Now to play the waiting game again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 19:41
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



So as above, sent the debt denied letter, got this response.

[attachment=37332:IMAG0742.jpg]
[attachment=37333:IMAG0743.jpg]

I find it quite humorous that they are now telling me where I parked, and their understanding of why the ticket is valid. There was me thinking they were just "debt collectors".

So my debt denied letter stated further contact would be harrassment, nothing paid unless I get a LBC letter. So can anyone help with a response to kill off any further contact?

Half tempted to start claiming costs on this.

Cheers in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cabbyman
post Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 19:48
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,108
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town.
Member No.: 16,066



Ignore or go for them for harassment. I don't think you will achieve anything by contacting them further.

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 19:48


--------------------
Cabbyman 10 PPCs 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hoohoo
post Tue, 1 Sep 2015 - 20:03
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 18 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,768



This is DR+ standard response.

I would not waste any more postage, but simply reply to all letters by email from now on.

Dear DR+,
I confirm receipt of you letter of xx/xx/xxxx. My position has not changed. The debt is denied. The signage was not adequate to form a contract with the motorist. Please refer the matter back to your principal. To save costs, I am open to Alternative Dispute Resolution.


DR+ will give up after a few more letters. Only do something different if you get a letter before claim or claim form


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 2 Sep 2015 - 06:56
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



To OP - if you want to claim costs, send a cease and desit to the principal AND to DR+, stating you reserve the right to take future action without notice unde the protection from harassment act. Cite Ferguson vs British Gas, and state you will hold them jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent.

Pick a nice round number - say £300

Give them 14 days to confirm all action has ceased, but that any other response will triggger action

Then, follow through and submit a claim

If you dont intend to do this, dont threaten it. Theyre debt collectors, and scum. They wont just pay up, or believe you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 07:36
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Hi all,

Just to update, I've had the usual letter from BW legal now stating the standard transfer to them for retrieval of costs. Balance due of £100 + £54 legal costs, which were apparently detailed on the parking sign. (tiny type face at the bottom of the sign stating
IF PAYMENT OF THE CHARGE IS NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE NOTICE VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD WILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TO RECOVER ANY OUTSTANDING CHARGES INCLUDING INTEREST AND ANY ADDITION COST INCURRED.

I fail to see values so that's a little bit of a blank cheque book in my eyes and must be clarified.

I'll do some reading at dinner, but I am going to look at the other threads regarding BWL and start to draught a letter as a response to their letter outlining why the notice has not been paid.

If anyone had some information that may be slightly more relevant to my case, then please do contribute. I appealed to VCS (not done a IAS appeal) using "I" so in that sense I think keeper vs driver is out of the window as an arguement.

many thanks, and hope you are all well.

A.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 09:36
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Theyre a debt colelctor

Respond as such, stating that they must refer the debt back to their client
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:12
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



[attachment=41996:BWLeg_01.jpg]

Here is the letter as received. Redacted to remove personal info.

This is, in effect my response...

[attachment=41997:BWLeg_02.jpg]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:15
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Bits of that sound Gan like smile.gif

I like it, but wait a little on others to comment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:20
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 13:15) *
Bits of that sound Gan like smile.gif

I like it, but wait a little on others to comment.


Thanks. biggrin.gif

I will admit, I have spent the last hour trawling Gan's posts and in effect created that. It seems relevant to my situation as it currently stands, no doubt it will evolve in to something much more bespoke as this drags on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 12:46
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Its quite lengthy, which you will have noticed runs contrary to most of Gans letters
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Tue, 7 Jun 2016 - 15:14
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



That is true, but I feel that it gets the two main points across now with a bit of "umpf" behind them.

I'll leave it until tomorrow for any more reviews, and then post tomorrow afternoon with proof of postage.

Cheers.
A.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Wed, 8 Jun 2016 - 11:53
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



Ladies and Gents,

I notice in a lot of correspondence there is a requirement to respond within a certain time to ourselves ( the same as they put in their letters to us), but is there an "or else" that should be placed after it?

E.G. "A response must be received 14 days from the date of this letter, otherwise......"

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 8 Jun 2016 - 12:08
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Yo ucould complain to the SRA or CSA, but they wont care.

You could simply state you will consider the matter closed and any further communication after this date will be treated as harassment, and refer them to the Ferguson vs British Gas case they ought to be aware of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BigAlC
post Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 06:43
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Apr 2015
Member No.: 76,977



So over the weekend I got my Final Notice from BW.

I had previously received a letter after my rebuttal mentioned earlier which I received on 17-06-16. Although there are inconsistencies within it;
- Date of contravention is wrong
- I'm being pursued as register keeper (POFA?)
- Legal fees are reasonable - Nothing mentioned about legal fees in signage ( generic " VCS will be entitled to take legal proceeding to recover and outstanding charges, including interest and any additional charges incurred " - in tiny box at bottom of the sign.) I don't believe this is sufficient to claim legal expenses in my opinion, all costs should be outlined if they are legitimate.

However in this final notice there is the following;
BW state:
- Yet to receive payment or response to the first letter - incorrect, letter sent and proof of postage kept.
- Below is something that has really got my back up, and I think with a bit of help from you ladies and gents could utterly blow everything out of the water.

[attachment=42605:BW_Spurious_Claims.jpg]

1) Insinuates that a CCJ WILL be won and applied to me, despite me knowing that this only occurs if I should lose and fail to pay.
2) References Beavis, and states that this will eliminate my main defence - I've never claimed anything in regard to Beavis, and my case is entirely different.
3) References that any IAS appeal that has been dismissed ( I've not gone through IAS under reasonable assumption that they are not unbiased ) will be found to be a similar decision as the court will make.


Some other items are, they expect a response tomorrow (10days from letter creation) I didn't receive the letter until Saturday 9-7-16, so that seems a little retarded. Also, still chasing the £154 of which the legal fees of £54 were detailed in the car park terms and conditions, they weren't.

I shall leave it there, have at it everyone, and I will go back to watching the post box for my LBC, should it arrive. I will also start to plan my defence in advance of anything coming through.

Thanks again, and pleasant reading.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 11 Jul 2016 - 07:23
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,761
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



1) actually Accj is given if you lose; if you dont pay it is then registered and THAT is what tanks a credit rating!
2) They can claim anything they like, theyre not acting on your behalf. Non starter
3) Again they dont say it as a certainty. They use likely. Now you would have to get them prove otherwise
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Wednesday, 19th December 2018 - 00:25
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.