Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Vehicle Control Services
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
Pages: 1, 2, 3
flabbergasted
Hi All,

We received an ANPR Parking Charge Notice in the post back in July last year. It was showing the time of car entering and leaving carpark, 20 minutes without displaying a ticket. At the time we couldn't even work out what carpark it was, as in their correspondence it reads: Albert Street Birmingham B5 5JH. The postcode is showing the address to be Park Street, not Albert Street. So we ignored their letters. Unfortunately, only kept the Letter Before Claim and all the subsequent ones: County Court Claim form (which was aknowledged in the 14 days) and Detailed Particulars. In Detailed Particulars there are no pictures nor real details of the alleged contravention, except for:
"The Defendant s been issued with a CN for failure to adhere to the advertised T&C s at a development(s) known as Albert Street B5 5JH on June 3 2017. The offer advertised by way of the T&Cs was accepted by conduct." etc signed by Jake Burgess

So, it's now down to writing a defence and prepare for the courts. As June 3rd was Saturday, the driver was only there looking to park and left without parking.
Any suggestions on what to focus on in the defence, much appreciated.
To add, County Court Claim Form was issued 18th April 2018.

Thank you all
The Rookie
First step, NOW is to write to VCS and require a copy of all correspondence they have sent you (in line with Civil Procedure Rules, its going to be too late really for your defence I suspect.

Failing to engage at all was a very bad idea I'm afraid, a Judge may decide that was unreasonable and award costs against you even if you win, that said VCS aren't in the habit of actually taking cases all the way to a hearing where there is a robust defence, they use the court claim as their final debt collection letter.

Start looking for recent VCS/CEL (Civil Enforcement Limited) defences on here (use search) and base your defence on them, this is why you really needed a copy of the first invoice, however your defence will include for sure
1/ Keeper liability - they are taking you as keeper to court as they don't know the driver ID (and you will NOT be telling them), but their paperwork is never complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (known as PoFA) so the keeper has no liability, only the driver - Their standard court claim usually mentions both as they don't want to show their hand that they are claiming against the keeper who has no liability so that's another point you add, they don't even know why they are taking action against YOU.
2/ Standing - Do VCS have the standing to operate in the car park and take the action they are, the answer is very likely a 'conditional no', the contract the landholder has is with a secure front company and VCS do the enforcement but are a disposable name if need be.
3/ Signage (can you go check it and get photos) - It's often poor and not obvious enough to create a contract
4/ Contract - usually the VCS signage is not adequate to create a contract
5/ 'Unconscionable under the circumstances' - whatever the circumstances are you seek to differentiate them from the ruling in 'Parking Eye v Beavis' whee the supreme court made a number of salient observations about what would NOT be unconscionable, failing to adhere to those makes them unconscionable.
6/ Amount claimed - PoFA limits any claim against the keeper to the original contract amount, to which they can add £25 claim fees and UP TO £50 legal fees (but they would have to prove they were incurred, as they use a robo claim model which just inserts defendants detail and location then they haven't incurred £50 in costs anyway) meaning £175, of course they are greedy and want to maximise return so their usual claim is for circa £370 including lots of made up amounts which should never stand a judges scrutiny.
ostell
And sometimes the signage creates an alleged contract with a company called Excel but VCS, a separate legal entity, are claiming the money. Get the signs.
The Rookie
Interestingly if you go to parkopedia there is an Excel car park that is listed as Albert Street but is actually on a road named by google maps as Freemason street, maybe that matches the postcode given.

https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark...ng=201805101430
Second one down, shows as an unamed road off Park Street. Reviews are as good as one would expect for Excel........

(NCP run the multi story that is actually on Albert street, entry off High street).

So not only was the road name probably wrong but it would appear to be Excel and not VCS, so the driver could have no contract with VCS, signage is clearly Excel and NOT VCS. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4797211,-...3312!8i6656

So no contract with VCS, and a PoFA failure (among their normal ones) that they don't even know where the car park is!
Dwaynedouglas
Someone else has had issues here too (in fact several have), but a recent one is here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1380276

There may be some useful information there for you - in particular SRM.
flabbergasted
Thank you so much for your prompt responses.
A thank you and a question to The Rookie, why would it be too late for the defence now? I read someplace that we have 33 days from the date of issue of the Court claim, so that leaves us with 10 days? Or indeed only 5 if 28. Also, is omitting defence at this stage advisable? Can we not ask VCS for documents AND send in our defence?

As for the signage, should they even make a difference either way if the driver never actually parked, no tickets purchased therefor no contract made? 20 min stay on PC can fall under the grace period, no? 10 min for entry + 10 min to exit?
I do feel the postcode in their correspondence is misleading as we still don't know which carpark are they referring to.
We went to check the carpark that is on online forums referred to as Albert Street and on their signs it's mostly Excel but on closer inspection, in small lettering it reads, "you agree to pay VCS interests and any additional costs" and also, "by parking on this private car park you are entering into a contract with VCS".
Thx Dwaynedouglas , I have read through that post as it is indeed similar to mine.

I'm only new here so bear with me for struggling with tech commands like quoting comments I'm responding to...
kommando
Provided the claim was acknowledged with the 14 days and the defence was blank then you get the 33 days. You must file a defence even with no reply from VCS or they can apply for default judgement. Best get started on the defence now and assume they reply too late.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 09:05) *
Provided the claim was acknowledged with the 14 days and the defence was blank then you get the 33 days. You must file a defence even with no reply from VCS or they can apply for default judgement. Best get started on the defence now and assume they reply too late.


Thank you kommando. Yes the claim was aknowledged within 14 days and left blank (we ticked the box with, will be defended in full). I can only assume VCS won't be responding to the request in a hurry if at all.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 07:45) *
Interestingly if you go to parkopedia there is an Excel car park that is listed as Albert Street but is actually on a road named by google maps as Freemason street, maybe that matches the postcode given.

https://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/carpark...ng=201805101430
Second one down, shows as an unamed road off Park Street. Reviews are as good as one would expect for Excel........

(NCP run the multi story that is actually on Albert street, entry off High street).

So not only was the road name probably wrong but it would appear to be Excel and not VCS, so the driver could have no contract with VCS, signage is clearly Excel and NOT VCS. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4797211,-...3312!8i6656

So no contract with VCS, and a PoFA failure (among their normal ones) that they don't even know where the car park is!


Hi Rookie, the postcode on our parking charge is B5 5JH which comes up as Park Street (no mention of Park St on their letters). Sounds to me they are misleading on purpose. I mean, look it worked on us... When we first received the letter we couldn't work out what car park nor who was driving, as it was Saturday at the time we can only assume the driver was looking to park, going in and out the carpark the 20 min they are chasing us for.
The Rookie
QUOTE (flabbergasted @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 08:58) *
Thank you so much for your prompt responses.
A thank you and a question to The Rookie, why would it be too late for the defence now?

I think you misread it
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 04:52) *
First step, NOW is to write to VCS and require a copy of all correspondence they have sent you (in line with Civil Procedure Rules, its going to be too late really for your defence I suspect).

The copy of the correspondence will probably arrive too late for you to use in the construction of your defence.
Redivi
Yes

Give VCS 7 days to send the information but write the defence based on what you already know

If the information doesn't arrive, add where appropriate that the Claimant has been asked to provide the information but ignored the request

Can VCS recover the payment if the particulars of claim fail to plead the Contracts (Rights of Third parties) Act 1999 ?
flabbergasted
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 09:57) *
QUOTE (flabbergasted @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 08:58) *
Thank you so much for your prompt responses.
A thank you and a question to The Rookie, why would it be too late for the defence now?

I think you misread it
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 04:52) *
First step, NOW is to write to VCS and require a copy of all correspondence they have sent you (in line with Civil Procedure Rules, its going to be too late really for your defence I suspect).

The copy of the correspondence will probably arrive too late for you to use in the construction of your defence.


Ah yes. Sorry, my bad. I get it now.
Think our defence will focus on 10+10 min grace period. We will look into the signage to AlbertStreet carpark, which is the one next to Moor street train station and doesn't refer to the postcode in their letters but our assumption is that's the one they refer to?! Mind boggling or what lol surely the address on PC should be clearly stated to be taken seriously.
ostell
Their particulars of Claim is embarrassing in its lack of detail

You should not have to assume anything for the case. If it's not clear then say so in your defence and say you cannot determine the exact location of the alleged breach, whatever it was, so makes it difficult to defend.

They have not said what breach of the T & C's is alleged to have been broken.

If the signage is Excel in big readable characters then that is who the contract is with.
Redivi
Think our defence will focus on 10+10 min grace period

That's guaranteed to lose

You're asking a court to believe that :

1 You entered the car park and took ten minutes to read the signs before deciding to leave
2 Having decided to leave, it took you another ten minutes

Focus on the signs, who offered the contract, the non-existence of the contract, and the legal capacity of both Excel and VCS including who could issue parking notices

This case raises some interesting issues, one of which is perverse

Excel manages the car park
Even if the sign says that payment of the parking notice will be to VCS, that doesn't automatically grant VCS the authority to issue parking notices

Excel's Code of Practice requires that the land-owner grants Excel the authority to take legal action
If it doesn't have the authority, the instruction on the sign that parking charges are owed to VCS would appear to grant a legal capacity to a sister company that it doesn't have itself
This anomaly may be covered in the Contracts (Rights of Third parties) Act 1999 as a defence
The Rookie
QUOTE (flabbergasted @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 10:27) *
Think our defence will focus on 10+10 min grace period.


Yeah I wrote this for the fun of it, not because I think its good advice or has a better chance of succeeding.
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 04:52) *
1/ Keeper liability - they are taking you as keeper to court as they don't know the driver ID (and you will NOT be telling them), but their paperwork is never complaint with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (known as PoFA) so the keeper has no liability, only the driver - Their standard court claim usually mentions both as they don't want to show their hand that they are claiming against the keeper who has no liability so that's another point you add, they don't even know why they are taking action against YOU.
2/ Standing - Do VCS have the standing to operate in the car park and take the action they are, the answer is very likely a 'conditional no', the contract the landholder has is with a secure front company and VCS do the enforcement but are a disposable name if need be.
3/ Signage (can you go check it and get photos) - It's often poor and not obvious enough to create a contract
4/ Contract - usually the VCS signage is not adequate to create a contract
5/ 'Unconscionable under the circumstances' - whatever the circumstances are you seek to differentiate them from the ruling in 'Parking Eye v Beavis' whee the supreme court made a number of salient observations about what would NOT be unconscionable, failing to adhere to those makes them unconscionable.
6/ Amount claimed - PoFA limits any claim against the keeper to the original contract amount, to which they can add £25 claim fees and UP TO £50 legal fees (but they would have to prove they were incurred, as they use a robo claim model which just inserts defendants detail and location then they haven't incurred £50 in costs anyway) meaning £175, of course they are greedy and want to maximise return so their usual claim is for circa £370 including lots of made up amounts which should never stand a judges scrutiny.

flabbergasted
Theres a lot to take in and process here smile.gif on top of it being my first ever Private carpark parking challenge.

I have attached copy of the claim Particulars, which to me read like a whole load of empty verbiage. I wouldnt class it as "particulars". So on top of their address of contravention being as vague and misleading as it is, we still dont know much about it.
Is there a sample of defence that would fit my case, someplace on Pepipoo that i can look at and mull over?
Thx again to everyone for such kind informative and quick responsive
The Rookie
As per my first post, this is a robo claim, the particulars are identical to EVERY other claim they make. The objective is to scare you into paying not to actually take it to a court hearing!
flabbergasted
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 15:17) *
As per my first post, this is a robo claim, the particulars are identical to EVERY other claim they make. The objective is to scare you into paying not to actually take it to a court hearing!


So true. Its all shambles but still they have the audacity to demand £150+
Is it possible that after i present my defence, they wont actually take me to court? Or with their county court claim form already out, my facing the actual court next is inevitable?
Jlc
QUOTE (flabbergasted @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 16:59) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 15:17) *
As per my first post, this is a robo claim, the particulars are identical to EVERY other claim they make. The objective is to scare you into paying not to actually take it to a court hearing!


So true. Its all shambles but still they have the audacity to demand £150+
Is it possible that after i present my defence, they wont actually take me to court? Or with their county court claim form already out, my facing the actual court next is inevitable?

They may discontinue but it's not unusual for them to go all the way even staring at the face of defeat. Small claims can be a lottery for both sides...
flabbergasted
So as suggested, onto the first step: write to VCS and require a copy of all correspondence they have sent to us.

How to formulate such letter to sound "legally correct" etc? Also, do I send it in post to VCS address as per claim form? With proof of postage from postoffice.

Thx
Redivi
Dear Sir

Ref : ****

I have received your Claim (Reference) dated *****

I no longer possess a number of the documents relevant to this claim
Please send me copies of all the documents you have sent including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

In order to understand my position and write my defence, I also require the following information by (date) :

******
*****
******
etc

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
Please confirm that your contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to issue parking notices and take legal action, and that this will be produced for the court.
I also require an explanation for the additional £** charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

Please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 18 and 31.14 to provide the information and documents

Although the claim is for a sum that should be allocated to the Small Claims track, this has not yet occurred.
The provisions of CPR 27(2) are therefore of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 duties by claiming otherwise.

The documents and information will be essential to prepare a defence and the request is entirely in accordance with the Over-riding Objective and CPR 1.1(2)(a).

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully
flabbergasted
QUOTE (Redivi @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 23:40) *
Dear Sir

Ref : ****

I have received your Claim (Reference) dated *****

I no longer possess a number of the documents relevant to this claim
Please send me copies of all the documents you have sent including the windscreen notice if one was attached to the vehicle.

In order to understand my position and write my defence, I also require the following information by (date) :

******
*****
******
etc

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
Please confirm that your contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to issue parking notices and take legal action, and that this will be produced for the court.
I also require an explanation for the additional £** charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.

Please regard this letter as a formal request under CPR 18 and 31.14 to provide the information and documents

Although the claim is for a sum that should be allocated to the Small Claims track, this has not yet occurred.
The provisions of CPR 27(2) are therefore of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 duties by claiming otherwise.

The documents and information will be essential to prepare a defence and the request is entirely in accordance with the Over-riding Objective and CPR 1.1(2)(a).

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully


Ah thank you so much, Redivi.
flabbergasted
A question: "I also require an explanation for the additional £** charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid".
what does this refer to?
Redivi
QUOTE (flabbergasted @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 00:28) *
A question: "I also require an explanation for the additional £** charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid".
what does this refer to?

The £60 debt collection charge
flabbergasted
Hi,

Would you say this roughly outlined defence is a valid one to expand on? Any advice, much appreciated.

1) I am the Defendant for this matter, the Defendant’s name is xx, the registered keeper of vehicle registration xxx.

2) The claim seemingly relates to an alleged incident in Albert Street, Birmingham, B5 5JH from, for non-payment of a required fee.

3) It is believed that the postcode, B5 5JH noted by the claimant is for a different parking area than the one noted on the claim. On google map, the postcode comes under the Park Street.

4) The motorists recollection is of entering a private car parking area, traversing the site looking for a space to park and being unable to do so. The motorist then left the site. As it was an extremely busy period this took some time with all other traffic about.

5) It is thought that the grace periods offered by all Parking companies for all parking sites cover such circumstances. No debt is or ever has been due.

6) The Claimant is asked to prove the legitimacy of signage present on site and that it has been audited by their Accredited trade association and signed off as being compliant as well as proof that the required advertisement consent was in place for such business operations at the site.

7) The Claimant is put to proof that the charge has been issued according to the regulations of the protection of freedom act 2012 Schedule 4.

8) POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph (5) does not allow for more than the original charge to be collected.

9) The Defendant questions that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services ltd and that Vehicle Control Services ltd have the locus standi to bring this matter to court.

10) The defendant believes that no charge is due as the vehicle was never parked upon this site after failing to find a vacant space. Time present was used to manoeuvre safely about the site whilst trying to locate a space to park.

11) No breach of contract has occurred as the vehicle was unable to accept the offer to park for any charge as specified. The car park was full and no notice of this was in place alerting motorists to that fact.
ostell
Perhaps rather than using google maps as the street reference provide a print of a royal mail lookup. this sort of page Being a semi official organisation it might just carry more weight.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 22:46) *
Perhaps rather than using google maps as the street reference provide a print of a royal mail lookup. this sort of page Being a semi official organisation it might just carry more weight.

Good point. I'll check out the link. Thank you.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 10 May 2018 - 10:58) *
Their particulars of Claim is embarrassing in its lack of detail

"You should not have to assume anything for the case. If it's not clear then say so in your defence and say you cannot determine the exact location of the alleged breach, whatever it was, so makes it difficult to defend."


Exactly. Ill have to make a bigger fuss of that in my defence as thats the most important point.

If the signage is Excel in big readable characters then that is who the contract is with.

Ive attached pics of closeups of the carpark signs where VCS is mentioned. Its ridiculous that motorists are having to study these signs so hard to work out the legality of the points made on them.
The Rookie
Why not mention that they have a car park in Freemason street in that post code?

You’ve not raised standing at all, given this used to be an Excel car park it’s likely that VCS have no standing but just ‘took over’.

You’ve not raised the fact the car park used to be run by Excel and asking them to show that it was run by VCS on the day in question, in fact you can still pre buy spaces via Excel for that car park. Check the last GSV filming date!
ostell
The bottom of that sign gives the full details of Excel, ie company number etc. Therefore it is with Excel that the contract was created. Vehicle Control Services do not legally identify themselves on the sign such that a contract could have been created with them.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 03:08) *
Why not mention that they have a car park in Freemason street in that post code?

You’ve not raised standing at all, given this used to be an Excel car park it’s likely that VCS have no standing but just ‘took over’.

You’ve not raised the fact the car park used to be run by Excel and asking them to show that it was run by VCS on the day in question, in fact you can still pre buy spaces via Excel for that car park. Check the last GSV filming date!


Thank you, all duly noted. Will be working on adding more. I guess I only focussed on Park street as thats what comes up under the postcode in the claim. They also mention Albert Street "Development", no idea what that means at all?

Regarding VCS standing or taking over, do you think what they mention on the signs (pics of which i attached before) is not enough? Its all made to be so complicated with VCS/Excel and this carpark, all the confusion probably on purpose to confuse and force the average motorist to give up and pay up.

I wouldnt know how to go about the last point you mention. GSV filming stands for google street view? Am still studying other cases and making notes. Though fully aware the time is ticking by.
The Rookie
Well from that sign VCS may be able to claim interest and additional costs - but not the original sum, while Excel may be able to claim the original sum but not the interest and other costs.

A bizarre arrangement under any normal circumstance (the alternate reality of PPC's excluded) but if they can argue that the signs created a contract, they wrote that contract and so have to abide by what they wrote. If the money was owed to Excel though its hard to understand on what basis VCS could claim those items as they have never offered an invoice so could not have incurred either. In addition as the £60 made up costs are clearly a penalty by nature and they don't form part of the core contract term (where is the costs sum mentioned, they don't have carte blanche to pluck a number from thin air) then they are still stuffed!
flabbergasted
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:25) *
Well from that sign VCS may be able to claim interest and additional costs - but not the original sum, while Excel may be able to claim the original sum but not the interest and other costs.

A bizarre arrangement under any normal circumstance (the alternate reality of PPC's excluded) but if they can argue that the signs created a contract, they wrote that contract and so have to abide by what they wrote. If the money was owed to Excel though its hard to understand on what basis VCS could claim those items as they have never offered an invoice so could not have incurred either. In addition as the £60 made up costs are clearly a penalty by nature and they don't form part of the core contract term (where is the costs sum mentioned, they don't have carte blanche to pluck a number from thin air) then they are still stuffed!


I honestly cant get my head around all that. An average motorist shouldnt stand infront of these parking signs and fish for legal loopholes.
ostell
But VCS have not legally identified themselves on the sign so haw can you have any possible contract with them to pay them anynting? The alleged contract was with Excel so why are VCS taking court action?

For POFA to apply 9 (2) (a) requires them to identify the relevant land. That they have not done. They have given 3 different locations so how is the keeper to know which location they are refereing to.
The Rookie
Indeed, which is why if there is ambiguity in a contract (signs) then it has to be interpreted in the customers favour.

So VCS may be able to claim interest (on what, they've never sent you an invoice) and costs they can justify, but can't claim the original amount owed as that isn't in the contract anywhere, that's for Excel to claim.
flabbergasted
And this is the entrace to the carpark. How is the driver supposed to read that whilst entering carpark? also, the sign is placed outside the fence of the carpark, so surely it cant even be taken into consideration?
ostell
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:44) *
So VCS may be able to claim interest (on what, they've never sent you an invoice) and costs they can justify, but can't claim the original amount owed as that isn't in the contract anywhere, that's for Excel to claim.

But there can be no liability to VCS at all as they have not fully identified themselves to be able to create a contract. No company number, no address, no nothing.


Also is that the alleged car park or the car park identified by the post code? Since there's 3 possible locations perhaps GSV or photos of all 3.

There's another claim in process at the same location this thread
flabbergasted
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 09:16) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:44) *
So VCS may be able to claim interest (on what, they've never sent you an invoice) and costs they can justify, but can't claim the original amount owed as that isn't in the contract anywhere, that's for Excel to claim.

But there can be no liability to VCS at all as they have not fully identified themselves to be able to create a contract. No company number, no address, no nothing.


Also is that the alleged car park or the car park identified by the post code? Since there's 3 possible locations perhaps GSV or photos of all 3.

There's another claim in process at the same location this thread


Thx Ostell. Thats the thing with their misleading address. We are having to only go with the assumption its the carpark right next to Moor street train station, as signs on that carpark read as 'Albert street'. The postcode on the claim is whole other world of different streets and carparks around there lol
The Rookie
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 09:16) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:44) *
So VCS may be able to claim interest (on what, they've never sent you an invoice) and costs they can justify, but can't claim the original amount owed as that isn't in the contract anywhere, that's for Excel to claim.

But there can be no liability to VCS at all as they have not fully identified themselves to be able to create a contract. No company number, no address, no nothing.


Bottom of the second scan? VAT and Co. number, admittedly no other ID. It all just emphasises how truly ludicrous the signage is.

And I did say MAY.......
ostell
Sorry, must be blind, didn't see those details. So does the sign have the usual large Excel logo at the top right? I don't believe you can make a contract with 2 entities at the same time so use the one that is apparent, ie the largest.
Lape
Their official app, showing that it still belongs to Excel =)
and the borders of the area indicated in VCS POC

P.S could we actually use each other POC as a proof that they are robo-generated identical ones?
The Rookie
Even though its not actually on Albert street according to Google maps!

EDIT - and streetmap.co.uk
Lape
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 10:11) *
Sorry, must be blind, didn't see those details. So does the sign have the usual large Excel logo at the top right? I don't believe you can make a contract with 2 entities at the same time so use the one that is apparent, ie the largest.


Yes, they do
ostell
So as far as the driver was concerned they were contracting with Excel and VCS are strangers. In case of confusion the consumer is entitled to use the most advantageous interpretation.
The Rookie
Interesting find here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Birmingham
Shows Albert street continuing across the dual carriageway to join Park street (but pedestrianised) and the north end of that car park appears to border it.

In the gap between the Clayton Hotel and what's labelled as Fazeley Street car park (also EXcel) if you imagine Park Lane continuing in a straight line where it kinks by the Hotel.
https://www.google.co.in/maps/place/Albert+...33;4d-1.8918048

I would say there can be no PoFA compliance on the location (ignoring other failings), even though they call it Albert street car park, its not on Albert street and it doesn't tell you the location, if you called it Fred car park it would be no less helpful (or more useless). A cynical person may suggest they use the Albert Street moniker to make it appear closer to the shopping than it actually is.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 10:11) *
Sorry, must be blind, didn't see those details. So does the sign have the usual large Excel logo at the top right? I don't believe you can make a contract with 2 entities at the same time so use the one that is apparent, ie the largest.


Yup. Big fat "EXCEL" at the top of the sign (tried to attach pic but there wasnt enough space left for attachments?)
ostell
Use an external hosting site and then place the link on here. Instructions in the READ ME FIRST sticky thread at the top of the list.

So Excel offering a parking contract and VCS taking you to court for an alleged breach of contract for the driver. Bit of a no no.
flabbergasted
QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 11:36) *
Use an external hosting site and then place the link on here. Instructions in the READ ME FIRST sticky thread at the top of the list.

So Excel offering a parking contract and VCS taking you to court for an alleged breach of contract for the driver. Bit of a no no.


Yes I understand the external hosting option, except im only using mobile phone atm so its all a bit tricky.
I still dont understand this whole VCS vs EXCEL business. They are both mentioned on their car park's signs, just how legally challengable all that is, I have no clue.
Redivi
IIRC the signs refer to paying VCS

It raises several legal issues

If you contract with Excel but payments go to VCS, they could enforce under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Regulations 1999

BUT

They have to plead the regulation
VCS isn't a third party; it issued the Parking Notice so what contract gives it the authority to do so ?
The third party has the same rights to enforce as if he had been a party to the contract therefore VCS has to produce Excel's contract with the land-owner to show what legal capacity the land-owner has granted
flabbergasted
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 13:18) *
IIRC the signs refer to paying VCS

It raises several legal issues

If you contract with Excel but payments go to VCS, they could enforce under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Regulations 1999

BUT

They have to plead the regulation
VCS isn't a third party; it issued the Parking Notice so what contract gives it the authority to do so ?
The third party has the same rights to enforce as if he had been a party to the contract therefore VCS has to produce Excel's contract with the land-owner to show what legal capacity the land-owner has granted

Thank you for the education smile.gif Hopefully at the end of this PC ordeal ill be able to share my advice with others. Im learning a lot from all of you guys, hope to put it all to good use in our defence and not let VCS win.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.