QUOTE
Dear Vehicle Control Services
Re PCN number: xxxxxxxxxx
I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:
1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.
Additionally, no contract has been agreed or broken with Vehicle Control Services since the signs do not have planning permission at this time, they are unlawful under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Please see the latest statement received today (4th April 2016) from Liverpool Council Principal Planning Officer with regard to newly submitted amendments to the existing illegally placed signs, "…the airport have presented a revised design for the signs which has been checked by my Highways colleagues, however I understand that there were still some flaws in the design. Highways have now recommended that the Airport employ the services of a specialist consultant to do the redesign. …. I understand that there is a disparity between the proposed and required font sizes in the latest version of the signs put forward. I believe as a result, the number of words may need reducing and the signs enlarging. …..The scheme is back in the airport’s hands at the moment." I will therefore be submitting a complaint to Liverpool Council asking that they take action against Vehicle Control Services since you continue to use illegal and unapproved signs as a means of justifying that a contract has been broken by the driver of a vehicle, or in my case the registered keeper, and therefore the issue of unlawful Parking Charge Notice’s.
Furthermore, I will be sending a complaint to ICO and the DVLA, to inform them that Vehicle Contract Services have breached their KADOE contract by requesting registered keeper vehicle details from the DVLA for something other than pursuing parking charges or for the purpose of asking the registered keeper who was driving, which this Parking Charge Notice is clearly not.
If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.
Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable. Continuing to pursue me is harassment and I will hold Vehicle Control Services liable under The Protection of Harassment Act 1997 Paras 7(3) and (3A) for your own actions and those of your agents. I will claim £50 on each and every occasion that I am contacted.
Yours faithfully,
Re PCN number: xxxxxxxxxx
I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:
1. Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
2. What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
3. As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
4. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
5. If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
6. Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
7. If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
8. Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.
Additionally, no contract has been agreed or broken with Vehicle Control Services since the signs do not have planning permission at this time, they are unlawful under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Please see the latest statement received today (4th April 2016) from Liverpool Council Principal Planning Officer with regard to newly submitted amendments to the existing illegally placed signs, "…the airport have presented a revised design for the signs which has been checked by my Highways colleagues, however I understand that there were still some flaws in the design. Highways have now recommended that the Airport employ the services of a specialist consultant to do the redesign. …. I understand that there is a disparity between the proposed and required font sizes in the latest version of the signs put forward. I believe as a result, the number of words may need reducing and the signs enlarging. …..The scheme is back in the airport’s hands at the moment." I will therefore be submitting a complaint to Liverpool Council asking that they take action against Vehicle Control Services since you continue to use illegal and unapproved signs as a means of justifying that a contract has been broken by the driver of a vehicle, or in my case the registered keeper, and therefore the issue of unlawful Parking Charge Notice’s.
Furthermore, I will be sending a complaint to ICO and the DVLA, to inform them that Vehicle Contract Services have breached their KADOE contract by requesting registered keeper vehicle details from the DVLA for something other than pursuing parking charges or for the purpose of asking the registered keeper who was driving, which this Parking Charge Notice is clearly not.
If you believe you have a cause of action, send a Letter before Claim within the next 21 days and I will take advice and will respond.
In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.
Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs or surcharges. I will not respond to those, so to involve another firm would be a failure to mitigate your alleged loss. In any case, the addition of any debt collector 'costs' is not my liability because the POFA 2012 can only potentially hold a registered keeper liable if certain provisions have been met and even then, the 'amount of the parking charge' is the only amount pursuable. Continuing to pursue me is harassment and I will hold Vehicle Control Services liable under The Protection of Harassment Act 1997 Paras 7(3) and (3A) for your own actions and those of your agents. I will claim £50 on each and every occasion that I am contacted.
Yours faithfully,
I've now received a response from them today (attached a copy), should I respond, ignore them all together or pay the £60. Any help would be grateful, thanks in advance.
