PCN from VCS

mightyrad

Love MSE, first time I've had an issue and not found exactly what I wanted article or forum-wise, though there is plenty of posts on the subject (I'm just after a bit of advice specific to me please).

Got a parking charge notice from Vehicle Control Services Ltd very recently. Read all the advice I can find, it all points towards ignoring anything from them until they stop sending me anything. I'm not out of the 7 day window before the £80 charge becomes £120 yet.

I parked in a car park I thought was free, well after any business hours (late evening). There are, however, signs around the car park (I've got a photo or two, albeit taken late night with a mobile phone if that helps anyone?). They're all the same, claiming it to be private property, and 'valid permit/ticket holders only'. So it could be construed I have breached the 'contract', having not purchased and displayed a ticket, and I'm not sure getting a ticket for this constitutes what the MSE article calls 'unfair'.

My argument would be that there is no obvious pay and display machine to be seen, the signage seems to quite ambiguous and at no point serves notice of standard parking rates and procedure, only of warnings. Furthermore the signs are not obvious when entering or leaving (on foot) the car park.

Much of my reasoning behind my opinion of the signs being inadequate comes from a forum post (I can't put a link to it yet being new around here) entitled 'Excel lose in court. Again'. If you follow the link in the post, the chap concerned explains in the comments section how the signage was poor.

So due to no ticket I may be at fault, but should I ignore them anyway, as all the internet seems to suggest, or is it a matter of believing that their signs are inadequate (or, of course, paying up)? In the mean time should I go back and take a few more photos?

Apologies if anyone feels they've made the same point over and over and I'm asking the same questions! I'd appreciate some advice, and I'll happily post any photos I have if anyone feels the need to see them. Being fairly handy with photo editing I could probably do a mini little layout map of where the signs are to go with the photos - just wanted to check if it's worth the effort first.

Stephen_Leak

Copy & paste.

Firstly, the legal stuff.

Only councils, the police, train operators and Transport for London can impose legally enforceable fines or penalties. A private parking company (PPC) or an individual can't. Even PPCs call their tickets “Parking Charge Notices”, not “Penalty Charge Notices”. In law, they’re called “speculative invoices”.

Any warning signs are usually so badly positioned and worded, that they won’t have created a fair and legally binding deemed contract between the car park owner and a driver entering the car park in the first place. See The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997 and Excel Parking Services vs. Cutts, Stockport, 2011, 1SE02759, the Peel Centre case.

Even if they do, all the car park owner (CPO) can claim from a driver in damages for any breach of contract is what they’ve lost as a result. If this is a free car park or they paid, this is £0.00. Demanding more has been judged to be unreasonable and therefore an unfair contract penalty under the terms of The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, which is not legally enforceable. See Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. vs. New Garage & Motor Co. Ltd., House of Lords, 1914 and countless cases since.

What should I do now?

We don’t condone not paying or overstaying in a pay car park. If you do owe the CPO anything, then you should write to them, offering this in “full and final settlement”.

In any event, advise the CPO that they are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and that any further actions have been judged to constitute harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. That ought to make the CPO call off the PPC and, hopefully, realise the potential cost of doing business with them.

Don’t appeal to the PPC. They always reject them. What’s in it for them to let anyone off? Actually, there is something in it for them: information. They need to know the identity of the driver of the vehicle involved at the time, because that’s who the alleged contract was with. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to make do with chasing the registered keeper.

With windscreen notices, an appeal letter will tell them your name and address, and maybe who was driving at the time. If they don’t know who the driver was, they have to buy the details of registered keeper from the DVLA. With postal notices, they’ve done this already. But they still need to know the identity of the driver.

They sometimes say that they have the right to ask for this information. This doesn’t mean that you have to tell them.

However, even if you’ve written and told them who the driver was, it doesn’t make their actions any less unlawful. It just means that instead of harassing the registered keeper, they can now harass the driver.

What will they do to me?

The PPC, then a debt collector and then a solicitor will send you a series of letters. The debt collector and solicitor are usually also the PPC, but using different headed paper. These letters will threaten you with every kind of financial and legal unpleasantness imaginable, to intimidate you into paying.

But, they can't actually do anything, for the same reason that a Nigerian e-mail scammer couldn't sue anyone who didn’t pay them.

What should I do then?

Continue to ignore everything you get from the PPC and their aliases. It does seem counter-intuitive to deal with something by ignoring it. Eventually, they will run out of empty threats, and stop throwing good money after bad.

esmerobbo

Ignore the muppets!

They would have to sue you for trespass, and I don't think VCS will be going there again.

Breach of contract? Did they offer anywhere you could purchase a permit or a ticket?

The Martin Cutts case is the one I think you are referring too, were the judge stated the signs were inadequate because they did not make it clear what the offer to park was, because the offer was made in 13mm writing on the sign.

The Judge's comment “The lettering about failure to comply is about four times larger than the lettering saying it is a pay and display car park, which tells me the real interest is in failure to comply"


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3490245

However don't worry yourself just ignore them!

mightyrad

It was indeed Excel vs. Cutts, copy and paste might have been my friend there, though I shied away from extending my post even more. Thanks for the rapid and incredibly detailed responses, hope I can pass on my own advice one way or another and get more involved in helping other savers!

bargepole

Even more significant than Excel v Cutts, is the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal ruling in VCS v HMRC - link here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3964225

This was from a superior court of record, and therefore binding on the lower courts, and in summary it says that PPCs cannot lawfully offer parking, or issue charges, unless they have a propietary interest in the land - which in 99% of cases, they don't.

VCS, and their parent company Excel, have tried to blaze a trail by taking people to court to prove their invoices are legitimate and enforceable. But it has all backfired on them, and they've now clearly established that they are, in fact, unlawful and unenforceable.

It doesn't matter diddly squat what the signs say, the whole PPC gravy train has seen the wheels fall off thanks to the greed of one company.

benham3160

VCS are about as popular as Google-Plus as the moment in the parking world, they thought they'd stick their hands in the beehive thinking they'd come out with a handful of honey.
....They didn't, they've just had a ruling that has basically the power to bring down their entire industry (they all agree this pretty much, except one joker who thinks he somehow is above this ruling....)

Ignore, I should think it'll be a long, long, long time before VCS try anything in a court room again.

Regards,
Andy

give_them_FA

Original poster, it was a long explanation, but all that we really needed to know is that it was a private parking company, whereupon we could simply say "unenforceable rubbish- ignore." The fact it was VCS is simply a re-inforcement of that advice as they very obligingly proved they cannot do court. Just send them their letter back with Scun thorpe written on it, they will understand and leave you alone.