IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Vehicle Control Services - Stopped on a roadway where stopping is prohibited

Hello,


You were all so helpful with my personal parking notice, that I thought id run you through one that my employer has been sent. I have previously responded once to either VCS or BW Legal with the following response (see below), I tried to be clever and use a template? We have today received a final notice (we'll see - although from my experience now I know they do try to take some people to court) from BW legal before they issue CC Proceedings. Can you advise on the situation at all and if you think we have a chance in defending. Please ask any questions and ill try to answer although it wasn't me who parked there, it was one of our team members.




I am responding to your parking charge notice dated 30/06/2016.


Please note that this letter to you is our justification of the 30 seconds we were at that location and there will be no other correspondence from us on this matter.


  • We pulled out of the busy fuel station to safely enter a sat nav postcode for our onward journey.
  • The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge. Your monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total. It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
  • The contravention as you call it can have caused no financial loss whatever to you or to the land owner.
  • We saw no clear signage in the place where we were parked for 30 seconds informing us that stopping is prohibited. The requirements are that clear signage must be erected.
  • Having examined your parking charge notice I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment for the following reasons:


Your notice refers to a “contravention” which is misleading for implying it to have been issued by a statutory authority. The term "contravention" which is usable only in penalty charge notices issued by local authorities is neither correct nor appropriate terminology for a civil parking notice.


Your notice refers in the text to being a PCN/ penalty charge notice, this term being attributed to a penalty charge notice issued by a local authority. It is therefore easily confused with a statutory penalty charge notice. The BPA is clear in its rules that such abbreviations and terms are not permissible.


Your notice wrongly requires payment to be made “within” 28 days which is contrary to statutory requirement that provides a period of 28 days from the date of receipt.


I trust this explains our situation and clears up this matter.
«13

Comments

  • Half_way
    Half_way Posts: 7,022
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Do not send that, It won't get you anywhere and could cause issues further down the line.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 58,110
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 5 January 2017 at 12:31PM
    VCS are IPC members so why not just use the IPC template you will find in the NEWBIES sticky thread?

    Was this on airport land? If so then byelaws apply where the word penalty is allowed.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • pappa_golf
    pappa_golf Posts: 8,895
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Fruitcake wrote: »
    VCS are BPA members so why not just use the BPA template in blue you will find in the NEWBIES sticky thread?

    Was this on airport land? If so then byelaws apply where the word penalty is allowed.


    https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203550272-Vehicle-Control-Services-Ltd
    Save a Rachael

    buy a share in crapita
  • rk4406
    rk4406 Posts: 36 Forumite
    Unfortunately it has already been sent in June. It was on land adjacent to a starbucks/ burger king etc. Ok ill have a read of the template and the link thank you
  • Fruitcake
    Fruitcake Posts: 58,110
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    pappa_golf wrote: »

    Sorry, I was skim reading the BPA list. Post edited accordingly.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister. :D
    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 130,105
    Name Dropper First Post Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    edited 5 January 2017 at 2:24PM
    Can you advise on the situation at all and if you think we have a chance in defending. Please ask any questions and ill try to answer although it wasn't me who parked there, it was one of our team members.
    If the company is the registered keeper then I would point out that the company cannot be liable as they were not the driver and nor does 'Elliott v Loake' nor 'Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films' apply in this instance because whilst the driver had lawful access to the vehicle they were not on company business/acting for the company in any way. So there is no keeper liability, no prospect of assuming a company was 'the driver' and no vicarious liability applicable.

    The driver pulled out of the busy fuel station to safely enter a sat nav postcode for the onward journey. Clearly this is just the sort of temporary 'vicissitude' that Senior Circuit Judge Charles Harris QC had in mind when he found as fact in Jopson v Home Guard (Appeal, Oxford, June 2016) that a temporary stop as part of the normal action of coming & going in a vehicle is not something that can give rise to a 'parking charge'.

    That a right to “use” and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to station a vehicle was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871. On the facts, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles. This echoes the view of Lord Neuberger in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 2007 :
    https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/jamie.pdf

    where at para 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading...'

    The conduct in this vexatious VCS case cannot be construed to be 'parking' (stationed on a longer term basis) but was merely the normal action of coming and going while looking for a destination. Clearly this is one of several private parking entrapment sites notorious up and down the Country and is just the kind of 'poor practice' that has caused the DCLG to scrutinise the private parking industry again, with a view to stamping out such unfair terms and charges.

    Kindly confirm this charge has been cancelled. As you have no 'reasonable cause' to continue to use the keeper's data, you must consider this a Section 10 Notice under the DPA and you are required to delete the data from your records. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not consent to any further processing of this data, save for confirming in one letter that the charge is cancelled. Failure to adhere to this clear notice and warning will result in a claim (or counter claim, should you attempt court) for data misuse, a matter for which no loss needs to be shown and we reserve the right to add your client at this location as co-Defendant, being jointly and severally liable for your actions and the conduct of your data controller.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
    Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
  • rk4406
    rk4406 Posts: 36 Forumite
    Thank you Coupon Mad, am I to send the case history paragraphs in your reply too? Its now been passed to BW Legal.


    A letter like this?




    Further to your letter to [our company] the company cannot be liable as they were not the driver and nor does 'Elliott v Loake' nor 'Combined Parking Solutions v AJH Films' apply in this instance because whilst the driver had lawful access to the vehicle they were not on company business/acting for the company in any way and therefore there is no vicarious liability applicable.

    The driver pulled out of the busy fuel station to safely enter a sat nav postcode for the onward journey. Like in the case of Jopson v Home Guard (Appeal, Oxford, June 2016) found that a temporary stop as part of the normal action of coming and going in a vehicle is not something that can give rise to a 'parking charge'.

    That a right to “use” and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to station a vehicle, this was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871.



    On the facts, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles. This echoes the view of Lord Neuberger in Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and others: HL 17 Oct 2007. See paragraph 123 Lord Neuberger held that to 'park vehicles' was 'to station them on a longer term basis' as opposed to 'the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way...[including]...the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading...'

    Kindly confirm this charge has been cancelled. As you have no 'reasonable cause' to continue to use the keeper's data, you must consider this a Section 10 Notice under the DPA and you are required to delete the data from your records. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not consent to any further processing of this data, save for confirming in one letter that the charge is cancelled. Failure to adhere to this clear notice and warning will result in a claim (or counter claim, should you attempt court) for data misuse, a matter for which no loss needs to be shown and we reserve the right to add your client at this location as co-Defendant, being jointly and severally liable for your actions and the conduct of your data controller.
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    I love it when people talk dirty.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • rk4406
    rk4406 Posts: 36 Forumite
    Yes all good as long as im not lining the company up for something...being as though I do not have a legal educated bone in my bone so im trusting you guys!
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    You do not need to have a law degree to fight these scamsters, thousands go to court unrepresented each year and give the PPCs a bloody nose.

    IMO, it is far easier to understand than a smart 'phone.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards