Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Looby78
    • By Looby78 16th Jul 16, 11:28 AM
    • 8Posts
    • 2Thanks
    Looby78
    DRP Notice of intended court action
    • #1
    • 16th Jul 16, 11:28 AM
    DRP Notice of intended court action 16th Jul 16 at 11:28 AM
    Hi, new to the forum and just wanting some advice.

    Back in March (1/3/16) I parked in a car park I use for work three times a week. As usual I paid and displayed. Unfortunately for whatever reason when I came back to the car I had a parking charge notice for £60 as the ticket I'd purchased wasn't displayed ans had flipped upside down onto the dashboard.

    I first emailed VCS a copy of the ticket explaining the weather conditions must have caused the ticket to move in the car. They replied with a letter stating that my ticket was not displayed correctly and as no mitigating circumstances have been given they saw no reason to warrant cancellation of the notice.

    I then replied stating they didn't provide tickets which stick on and that they were welcome to take me to court.

    Since then we've had three more similar letters from VCS each one becoming more 'urgent' and we haven't responded.

    Three weeks ago we got a letter from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd asking for £160 which we ignored. They followed up that letter today with similar trying to frighten us into paying with a letter talking about landmark ruling Beavis v Parking Eye.

    So basically I could do with a bit of advice. We have retained the ticket purchased for parking on the day which covers us for the date and time of the penalty. We have also checked the weather that week as from memory it was quite windy and the weather that week of March was quite poor and it's an open car park and also since then they have changed the pay and display tickets they give out from non-sticky ones to sticky tickets.

    What's the likehood of them getting something from this if it goes to court and what should our next action be?
Page 2
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 21st Jan 17, 10:36 AM
    • 5,677 Posts
    • 7,334 Thanks
    beamerguy
    Hi again.

    I sent a reply as in post number 16 on 8th January.I got a reply from BW Legal dated 16th January stating they hadn't had a reply. However today I've had another letter from BW in response to the letter I sent. The letter gores as follows:
    Originally posted by Looby78
    "We confirm Our Client elects to rely on the court of appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798"

    Chaplair brought County Court proceedings against its tenant Mrs Kumari in order to recover unpaid rent and service charges.
    http://www.jbleitch.co.uk/news/chaplair-limited-v-kumari-2015

    BWLegal are acting for VCS so is VCS .... THE LANDLORD ?
    OR SIMPLE AGENTS
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jan 17, 10:09 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,519 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi again.

    I sent a reply as in post number 16 on 8th January.I got a reply from BW Legal dated 16th January stating they hadn't had a reply. However today I've had another letter from BW in response to the letter I sent:


    ''We refer to the above matter and your recent correspondence.

    Our Client is seeking recovery of the PCN recovery costs n the sum of £54. We refer you to the bottom of the Tariff Board, which states, '[the Claimant} will be entitled to take legal proceeding to recover any outstanding charges, including interest and any addition costs incurred.'

    We confirm Our Client elects to rely on the court of appeal ruling in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798, 'that does not alter the fact that it remains a contractual entitlement which the court will enforce subject to its equitable power to disallow unreasonable expenses. There is nothing in the rule making powers in respect of the CPR which enable the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14. '
    '
    Originally posted by Looby78



    Dear BW Legal,

    PCN ref xxxxxx (VCS Ltd)

    It is noted with disdain that you are now dredging up another irrelevant piece of case law in Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798. Is your desperate attempt at relying on the criminal case of Elliot v Loake no longer fooling Judges or are you trying to rely upon both?

    The sum you are demanding seems to have been plucked from thin air and I assert the £54 figure would not have appeared on the signs and if it was there, it was buried in small print and not bound to have been seen. My case can be fully distinguished from Kumari which was about contractual fees supported by lease terms, not random 'costs' bolted on afterwards to an already significantly inflated 'parking charge' which bears no relation to any tariff displayed at the location.

    CPR 27.14 certainly disallows your thinly-veiled attempt at double recovery.

    My case can also be fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which helpfully confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in less complex private parking charge cases, such as those 'ordinary financial transaction' cases with a quantifiable tariff. Regarding added costs, I remind you that in Beavis, £85 was the only sum sought, which was held in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as an amount set high enough to more than cover the costs of ParkingEye’s fully-automated and generic business model.

    Further, this purported claim appears to arise over an alleged non-payment of a tariff, disproved immediately in an appeal proving that the driver did pay and display and did not contravene any terms.

    VCS - being owned by ex-clamper of 'Captain Clampit' infamy, Simon Renshaw-Smith - will recall that it was not long ago (2012) that rogue clampers used to reportedly rock cars to dislodge permits. However, I would not presume to suggest this is the case in this instance and VCS (knowing from our appeal that the tariff ticket was indisputably paid and displayed when the driver parked) should extend the driver the same courtesy. Alleging blame for an incident most likely caused by adverse weather conditions 'force majeure' is a situation which cannot be held to be the fault of one or other party, remains beyond anyone's control after the car is parked and left and which cannot give rise to a penalty for the profit of one party or the other.

    To continue to pursue this matter offends against the penalty rule, is unreasonable and vexatious and should I prevail when defending a claim I will seek my own costs under the same Civil Procedure Rule you are trying to blind me with in your letter.

    yours faithfully,
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-01-2017 at 10:14 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Looby78
    • By Looby78 23rd Jan 17, 9:14 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    Looby78
    I've got two photos of the signs at the car park. One is really old and mentions clamping, towing etc, and has parts covered with gaffa tape, The others (of which there are six) mention a parking charge of £100 reducing to £60 is paid within 14 days of the PCN being issued. No mention of £54 though.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 23rd Jan 17, 9:48 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,519 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would add that paragraph to the letter/email just for good measure. Respond every time and be robust, which I why I wrote that the way I did. Shows VCS they will not get an easy ride in court and that certain things will be drawn to the Judge's attention.

    The more we do this with robust responses mentioning stuff that VCS or Excel don't want raised, the more Judges will remember previous cases and not be so keen to believe the claimant is the innocent party. Judges need to know this is often 'the clamper brigade' with suits on.

    I really meant it when I wrote that bit about clampers rocking cars - they did. So how can anyone be sure which party was at fault - or no-one if due to weather conditions. You need to make sure this isn't argued 'the ticket must have blown down' which is weak and you don't know who might/might not have helped it there.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Sallim
    • By Sallim 15th Jun 17, 7:42 PM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Sallim
    Update
    Ho Loo y,
    Is there any update. Did you win the case? I received letter from DRP saying that notice of intended court action if i dont pay in 14 days then they will their client G24 Ltd to take legal action.
    I did not see any sign when i parked there and it was quite dark that time. They sent me picture of car but its not clear from the picture of that is my car.
    They Tried to zoom in and took number plate. My question is do they use video as evidence in court or picture taken from camera. I have not replied to there any letter. What is best course of action for me.
    Thanks in advance
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th Jun 17, 7:45 PM
    • 32,403 Posts
    • 16,503 Thanks
    Quentin
    Your only course if you hope to get advice is to start your own thread,!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

442Posts Today

5,246Users online

Martin's Twitter