URGENT: VCS PCN/NTK: Flora Street, Sheffield |
URGENT: VCS PCN/NTK: Flora Street, Sheffield |
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 08:35
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Hello all,
16/09/2018: My car was parked in Flora Street Retail Park, Sheffield, between two cars in a row of cars which appeared properly parked. In retrospect I can see that there are no marked bays in that area, but also no marked parking restriction. My car then had a MyParkingCharge.co.uk sketchy looking 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' ticket left on the windshield. 24/09/2018: marked Issue Date on Parking Charge Notice / Notice To Keeper (both at top of page) from VCS, stating Contravention Reason '81) Parked In A Restricted / Prohibited Area'. I knee-jerk replied via appeal on website that it is not clear that parking is not allowed there, and that my suspicion was that this is intentional to make money. I know this wasn't the right move to make, please don't point that out. I had the following response from VCS: "We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 27/09/2018. Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows: The signs at the car park make it clear that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles park outside of the Terms and Conditions displayed. The signs in proximity to where the above detailed vehicle parked clearly indicate vehicles to "park correctly and only between the lines of a single marked bay" the vehicle parked in that Restricted/Prohibited area of the car park and therefore you became liable for the Charge advertised. We maintain that the signs on this site meet the requirements set by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice. The signs are large, prominent and legible,so that any reasonable 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 contract law to say, "I did not read the terms", so long as the existence of those terms is reasonably advertised.We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued. We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations, your appeal is therefore rejected and the charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at..." They want £60 from me by 31/10/2018, or £100 by 14/11/2018. Points to note: Time on the windscreen ticket reads 15:40, time on PCN/NTK is 15:41. I didn't tell them "I did not read the terms", but am guessing this is a standard response from them. Photographs on website show my car clearly parked between others as though in bays, and every time I have been since there are cars parked there. Others on this forum have beat tickets for same contravention in same spot but years ago. Please help out if you can as I feel this spot really is a honey trap. Let me know if you need pictures and I will upload. Also, reason for delay is that I have been away for a fortnight! Not just been lazy. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 - 08:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 06:29
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Nothing you can do now but sit back and file the blizzard of junk mail, you cannot make this go away, but you do not have to pay.
In case they change, go back and get photographs of the signage, both from a distance to show visibility and closer for the exact T&C's. Yes its a standard response and the time difference is irrelevant as the car was clearly still parked there at 15:41. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:04
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Hi Rookie,
Thank you for the reassurance. On what grounds can I just ignore? My main gripe is that it is unjust, but that's not so easy to substantiate. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:37
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
The grounds are: the dozens of threads here that tell you that their charges are unjust
Do some reading, see what answers you come up with. Ignore is the correct advice, up to a letter before aciton or a court claim form, neither is likely. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:49
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Thanks Nosferatu,
I have read through dozens of threads, but am aware that 'just ignore' advice was warned against after a landmark case a few years ago. But ignore is the easy option anyway so suits me fine! |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 13:13
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
That "landmark" case didnt change anything for the majority of tickets. Beavis had VERY specific circumstances which most car parks fial to meet.
I didnt say "just" ignore. I said ignore until a specific point. That is because you can do nothing of use before that point. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 13:52
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
The ‘landmark’ case didn’t huge the just ignore advice, the protect of freedoms act where you could take advantage of POPLA to kill it off.
Visibility of signage, it’s ability to form a contract and standing still apply to pretty much every case. -------------------- 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 |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 18:19
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 83 Joined: 2 Sep 2016 Member No.: 86,846 |
As you seem to be aware now this car park is a very lucrative honey trap for VCS, particularly the unmarked area were they dish out the tickets for 'parking in a restricted area'.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if VCS parked 'bait' cars in that spot to entice the unwary driver into also parking there. Then as soon as the driver enters the stores pounce with one of their 'This is not a parking charge' tickets, kerrching! There is another recent thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123012 And another thread where a poster Marmalade67c (not the OP) mentions (in post #14) they beat a VCS claim at court for the same scam. They won because in their defence they contested as this area of the car park was not marked as a restricted area so the charge was invalid and the judge agreed http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=98198 And another win for the motorist and bloody nose for VCS. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=107883 I don't know what you put in your appeal to VCS but you should have included the fact that the area is not marked or signed as a restricted area. They would have still dismissed your appeal but it may have helped in a future court claim. In their rejection letter they should also have offered you the chance to appeal to the IAS. You should avoid this as they are far from impartial and it would be futile. As said by other posters you will now get debt collectors letters which can be safely ignored, despite their threatening tone. If you eventually receive a 'Letter before claim'. that should be responded to. This post has been edited by Porcupine: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 18:43 |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 18:40
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Thank you Porcupine for the thorough and helpful advice. I'll keep a record of it and check back in if and when that 'letter before claim' comes.
I went and photographed the signage again today, as advised, and all signs are over 6 feet off the ground at the bottom, and written in a small font. |
|
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 22:22
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 431 Joined: 10 Apr 2011 Member No.: 45,808 |
I'd take a close look at the signs too. ( I live nearby and never shop there because of the parking weasels)
There used to be a line at the bottom about charging you £10.00 (or a similar figure) - even if your appeal is successful!! Might be worth posting the sign up here and letting people take a look at it. |
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 13:25
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
"Please be advised that correctly issued Parking Charge Notices which are subsequently cancelled will attract a £10.00 fee."
Attachment uploader is not working on my machine right now. |
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 13:29
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 28 Apr 2015 Member No.: 76,977 |
Have a look at my thread as well. I'm in final throws before court issuance.
There (as mentioned) are a number of cases where they have lost for the same invoice reason. I'm hoping to add to it. Don't panic at this stage, just keep your eyes open for a Letter Of Claim / Letter Before Claim, and the final Court Issuance document. |
|
|
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 - 13:29
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Just send it to tinyupic, imgur etc, as the READ FIRST sticky states
They can say whatever they like, they can go whistle if they think anyone is stupid enough to pay the fee. |
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 10:30
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
I received a 'DEMAND FOR PAYMENT' letter, attached here. Will continue to ignore them as recommended until Claim letter arrives, but will keep you guys updated.
Thank you. [Removed at OP's request] This post has been edited by Fredd: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 15:15 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 11:32
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 22 Apr 2018 Member No.: 97,626 |
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 11:14
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Hello all,
I have now received my 'Letter Before Claim'. There was one payment reminder a week or two ago as well. What should be my next step? Thank you. |
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:34
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
As per the NEWBIES thread on MSE about LBC stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822 It's covered in the second post there, about sending a SAR to keep them busy and to see their hand. And also you will see among the example defences there, a VCS /not a PCN' defence already written, ready for you to adapt for your court claim in 2019. Well worth fighting and all been done before, and no there is no risk in defending. No CCJ, no huge costs, no nothing. Well worth genning up on ahead of time. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:05
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
Hello all,
I have sent an SAR to VCS's Data Protection Officer, with the specific requests listed on the MSE post. I also followed it up with a request sent to info@ VCS and litigation@VCS to put the case on hold pending response to SAR. I have researched the landowner of Flora Street Retail Park, and it looks like (from other posts here/MSE) they are called Eddisons and that they are unwilling to help in any parking cases. Should I just sit tight for responses to my e-mails now? Thank you. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 13:25
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 28 Apr 2015 Member No.: 76,977 |
Rebut it strongly.
State the onus is on VCS that they need to prove that the area is restricted ( I presume you have photos of the area when you parked showing no such restricted area). They have lost numerous times on restricted area within this car park. You can reference their loss on the 1/2/17 in front of District Judge Roebuck at Sheffield. Whilst the case cannot be used in small claims, it shows you know that they have lost and the outcome (in their own words) "is likely to be the same again". I'd also suggest working through my thread, I had a LBC and am currently on hold after a VERY robust response. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...98552&st=80 |
|
|
Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 09:48
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 64 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,518 |
That's great, thank you BigAIC. I have read through your post (had already seen the thread on MSE) and am happy to proceed down the 'not marked as restricted' route, and will use some of your wordings.
VCS were very quick in responding to my SAR, with a full PDF containing everything they hold on me. Not very enlightening to be honest, and didn't hold up proceedings at all. How do I respond to the LBC? I read in your thread BigAIC that you don't have to use the forms. So how do I respond? Direct to the 'litigation' e-mail address? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:55 |