Vehicle Control Services LTD - Angry

trisontana

Ginola14 wrote: »

Hi I am in the same position with a parking fine from VCS
I now have a letter threatening legal action .I have followed advice on here and ignored but now I feel my resolve faltering a bit
Do you still advise me to ignore. Are they likely to issue court proceedings?
Thanks

Just keep ignoring. Please don't fall for their empty and meaningless threats. That's what they want you to do. It won't go anywhere near court. And, by the way, it's not a "fine", it's an unenforceable invoice.

torontoboy45

Ginola14 wrote: »

Hi I am in the same position with a parking fine from VCS
I now have a letter threatening legal action .I have followed advice on here and ignored but now I feel my resolve faltering a bit
Do you still advise me to ignore. Are they likely to issue court proceedings?
Thanks

stand firm in your resolve and continue to ignore.

I've posted before: 'when superman goes to bed he wears torontoboy pyjamas'.

the simmering cesspool of chancers, spivs, liars and cretins will never squeeze a brass bean out of me. never.

be like me and invite them to do their worst by not responding.

Dave101t

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

esmerobbo

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

It depends on who makes the rules I suppose. Unfortunately a private company, or person cant unless you have an agreed contract with them!,

trisontana

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

If they did they can only claim for the actual material loss suffered. Anything above that would be considered an unfair penalty.

jkdd77

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

If the OP owned a specific space, or had a certain type of lease over a space, then its none of the PPC's business whether he/she displayed a permit or not, he/she is not subject to any PPC "rules", and therefore no "rules" were broken.

In addition, the amount demanded is almost certainly a penalty and any claim would fail on those grounds as well.

In practice, it is incredibly difficult for any PPC to win in court against a properly prepared defendant, especially in the case of a permitholder parking in his or her own space.

Coupon-mad

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

You are deluded! PPCs certainly cannot 'easily win'. :rotfl:

On pepipoo forums there have been a handful of Court punts recently by a couple of mad PPCs and they all lost. And one case on CAG where a PPC got a default win because they never told the person there was a Court case - so the motorist got the judgment overturned of course!

taffy056

jnwilde wrote: »

So the letters have arrived, however i cant post them as im a new user, is it possible to do it some other way?

So their letters have arrived at the RK address that just so happens to be at the block of flats where the car was parked, so thereby proving beyond reasonable doubt that there is no loss, if it ever went to court (which it won't) you can show them the letters and appeal to the PPC that show clearly they are being unfair as its been established by their very own letters that you live there.

Its clearly a penalty which is illegal to issue!

taffy056

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

can you actually back that up with verifiable facts ?

HO87

Dave101t wrote: »

dont forget tho, you did break the rules and they can easily take you to court and win. its all a matter of if they can be bothered.

The rules - such as they claim them to be - are predicated on the basis of contract law and any claim they instigate can only be for damages in tort (recompense for their loss) for the breach of the putative contract. The OP has a valid permit and was occupying a space they were entitled to. Damages are intended to allow the injured party to be returned to the position they were in before they suffered the tort. The landowner/parking company are in no different a position than before, there is no loss to them and there cannot therefore be any damages.

This all assumes that there was actually a contract and if the OP has an entitlement granted by virtue of a lease/freehold then the imposition of arbitrary conditions on the car park cannot overrule that. I wonder what offer the landowner could make to him and what consideration he might reasonably be expected to give when he already has the right?? As for any acceptance, how could he accept something he already enjoys?

The "charge" is clearly intended to ensure adherence to the "rules" (aka "contractual conditions") and can only therefore act as or be intended to deter non-adherence. On that basis it has the effect of a contractual penalty which is not permitted at law.

The OP could possibly have cause to pursue the PPC and landowner for breach of his right to "peaceful enjoyment". That's the only potentially tortious act I can clearly see in this case.

@ Dave101t - just because it says "Rules" doesn't mean that they are legal or enforceable. There is every chance that they aren't legal.