VCS PCN - Help Needed

AB_Express

In their last letter they said they would not be contacting me further so was surprised to now receive a Letter of Claim...

I now have about 12 days to pay to prevent legal action, they again mention the Beavis case and go on to say 'If our client successfully obtains a CCJ against you (which is likely)'...they are the words they used.


I am going to respond with something along these lines...


Dear Sir / Madam

Ref xxx

Thank you for bringing up the Beavis case and going into more detail, it supports my side as registered keeper of the car, because there was no contract/breach of any licence to park possible in an alleged roadway where stopping is prohibited. Not that the driver feels it was adequately signed as a no stopping zone due to a distinct lack of prominent lines & signs - and in any case the driver only stopped to inspect an oil leak which is not parking but was an emergency beyond the driver's control. Even the photographs on the PCN show the driver of the vehicle bent over looking under the car. The car was booked into the garage shortly after and subsequently sold due to gearbox failure.

I will certainly use the Beavis judgment comments about trespass in my favour, as well as the POFA 2012 if this case does go to court but, as VCS cannot hold keepers liable, I consider this entire contact to be harassment of a party not legally liable.

Yours Sincerely
Squiggle


Would appreciate any comments, bits to add / remove.

Coupon-mad

'If our client successfully obtains a CCJ against you (which is likely)'

Needs a complaint to the SRA. Utterly wrong and misleading. :eek:

Your reply looks fine. Send it by email and post (free proof of posting from the PO counter being retained). You could add that you have reported them to the SRA for mistating the CCJ position in the above sentence, seeing as defended claims (even if lost) do not result in any effect on credit rating nor a CCJ.

AB_Express

Received a letter in response to my email.

They say, "In your correspondence you confirm that your vehicle stopped, thus you admit to being in clear violation of the above prohibition". Which is stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited. The vehicle was stopped on a dirt track off of the main road that leads to wasteland.

They go on to mention S1(3)(c) of The Harassment Act 1997 and their course of action has been entirely reasonable and in no way reaches the high threshold of harassment. They then say my "recourse for dispute is through the county court process, which could increase your liability further".

They close by saying our client is amenable to resolving the matter in 7 days without the need to incur any further cost, failure to which will seek our client's instruction on issuing County Court proceedings.

What are my next steps? Any help is again much appreciated.

hoohoo

You could refer then to the Pranksters blog today, which confirms that the notices "make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all, therefore no contract exists"

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

AB_Express

Thanks for the link, interesting reading.

Coupon-mad

Use the case numbers and details and throw it in their face. Do not leave the ball in the court of a party set for court proceedings, play email tennis and respond to put the case back into the 'clearly disputed' pile. Keep responding. Do not give away details about who parked.

AB_Express

Is this ok as a response?

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for your letter.

May I draw your attention to the below cases that confirm the notices make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B
B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W
B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L

I would also like to draw your attention to the case on the link below where VCS had a case dismissed in court for a vehicle breaking down and having to stop on a roadway where stopping is prohibited.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html

Do I give them a timeline to respond, if so what would be acceptable?

Thanks in advance.

The_Deep

As CM says, play email tennis, ask lots of questions, cite previous break downs, cost them money. Quote LA policy,

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/transport/driving-and-parking/parking-tickets/disputing-a-council-issued-parking-ticket/reasons-for-disputing-your-penalty-charge-notice/

When a red warning light shows you need o stop asap and read the handbook, it could be a brake fluid leak. A dead end track would seem the ideal place.

Coupon-mad

Do I give them a timeline to respond, if so what would be acceptable?

Yes, conclude with something like:

If your client believes that they offered a parking licence which was communicated, accepted, then breached under contract, then they must pursue the matter against the driver via the small claims track and cease to harass me, the registered keeper. Unless the matter proceeds within 14 days I will reasonably assume that your client has cancelled the charge having concluded that a claim against a registered keeper under the tort of trespass, for actions contrary to a purported prohibition on stopping and on 'non-relevant land' that VCS do not own - has no prospects of success.



You could thank them at the start for confirming the sign merely sets a ''prohibition'' rather than offering any licence to park. And thank their client for mentioning ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis which only assists your case. That judgment exposes this charge as a clear penalty. It is not a 'core price term' for a service offered at a set cost/fee and it also fails the 'Beavis test' in terms of the intention and construction of the charge as confirmed at the Supreme Court at 9:

''...The question whether a damages clause is a penalty falls to be decided as a matter of construction, therefore as at the time that it is agreed…This is because it depends on the character of the provision, not on the circumstances in which it falls to be enforced''.

Where there is an absolute prohibition on parking/entering land and no 'licence on conditions' offered nor contractual 'promise' given, any allegation of breach cannot be a matter of contract and falls squarely under the tort of trespass. At the Supreme Court, Mance LJ held at 190:

''Mr Beavis… was being given a licence, on conditions, and he would have been a trespasser if he overstayed or failed to comply with its other conditions. By promising ParkingEye not to overstay and to comply with its other conditions, Mr Beavis gave ParkingEye a right, which it would not otherwise have had, to enforce such conditions against him in contract''.

And at 107 from the same Supreme Court judgment:

''But it may fairly be said that in the absence of agreement on the charge, Mr Beavis would not have been liable to ParkingEye. He would have been liable to the landowner in tort for trespass, but that liability would have been limited to the occupation value of the parking space.’’

AB_Express

I have received another letter from BW Legal. They have quoted an incorrect registration, number instead of a letter. They are also quoting the Elliot v Loake [1982] case. Can I go with something like the below to continue the letter tennis.

Dear Sir / Madam

Thank you for your letter dated the 25th August 2016.

I would like to bring it to your attention that I have never been the registered keeper of a vehicle with the registration 1234567.

Kind regards

Squiggle.

I need to get a response in the post tomorrow (Sunday) as I am going on holiday on Monday and may not have access to email.

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.