Received two Parking charge notices from VCS at john lennon airport

adep_2

Thanks again all, really sorry for all the questions, I just panic and worry about the slightest thing. Not slept properly since I got these tickets.


So basically I just fill in and send this draft form to VCS






Date


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. ....................

I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car, on these main grounds:

a). The sum does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss, nor is it a core price term. It is a disguised penalty and not commercially justified.
b). As keeper I believe that the signs were not seen, the wording is ambiguous and the predominant purpose of your business model is intended to be a deterrent.
c). There is no evidence that you have any proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your 'Notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012 and breaches various consumer contract/unfair terms Regulations.
e). There was no consideration nor acceptance flowing from both parties and any contract with myself, or the driver, is denied.

Your clients should be thoroughly ashamed of the shoddy way you treat consumers visiting their premises. The landowner will be made fully aware of this matter and your response, which I will forward to their CEO when I complain in writing and via social media, as appropriate. Parking firms like yours fail to demonstrate even a basic understanding of customer service. The reputation of your business model appears to be more akin to a protection racket than 'parking management'. Your ATA may offer sound-bites about driving up standards or fight for motorists' rights but in reality they are not a regulator; they merely exist to represent the interests of paying members, in order to gain access to DVLA data. The public have no faith in the private parking industry and, as far as I have seen, your firm has not shown itself to be any different than the ex-clampers with whom you share a membership.

The purpose of this communication is:

1. Formal challenge
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. As such, you must either rely on the POFA 2012 or cancel the charge. I suggest you uphold this challenge now or alternatively, send a rejection letter - subject to accepting my claim for costs as clearly stated below, since you have no case.

2. ''Drop hands'' offer
The extravagant 'parking charge' is baseless but I realise that you may have incurred nominal postage costs. Equally, I have incurred costs to date, for researching the law and responding to your junk mail dressed up to impersonate a parking ticket. It is clear that my costs and yours, at this point, do not exceed £15. Therefore, this is a formal “drop hands” offer. I remind you of the duty to mitigate any loss, so withdraw the spurious charge within 35 days without further expense and I will not pursue you for my costs. If you persist then I will charge in full for my time at £18 per hour plus my out-of-pocket expenses and damages for harassment.

3. Notice of cancellation of contract
I hereby give notice of withdrawal from this alleged 'contract' which was never properly offered by you and certainly was not expressly agreed. This 'contract' is hereby cancelled and any obligations now end. If you offer - and if I decide to use - IAS or POPLA, then the contract ends immediately on the date of their decision (whatever the outcome) so my notice of cancellation still applies. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations apply now to every consumer contract, save for a few exemptions, which parking contracts are not. It is the will of Parliament following the EU Consumer Rights Directive, that express consent is obtained for consumer contracts now - not implied consent - and that information is provided in a durable medium in advance.

You have failed to meet these requirements. The foisting of unexpected contracts like this on consumers, by stealth, is a thing of the past.

By replying to the challenge you are acknowledging receipt and acceptance of points 2 and 3 above. If you decide to persist with this unwarranted threat, I will be put to unnecessary expense and hours of time in appealing or defending this matter. As such, you will be liable for my costs and a pre-estimate of my loss - and in contrast with yours, mine is genuine - is that this sum will be likely to exceed £100.

I have kept proof of submission of this challenge. I look forward to your considered reply within 35 days.

Yours faithfully,


{the registered keeper's name}

adep_2

Hi all. I have just received my rejection reply that they received on 22nd April.
They have put what I should do next


1 Pay the charge 2 x £60 by the 29th may
or
2 appeal to the IAS


it also states and I quote" please note we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary"


Would anyone be willing to help me with what is the best route to take.
Many Thanks

Ralph-y

well that's no surprise .......

The IPC have the worst appeals service in the know galaxy ....... the chances of winning are small.

Opinion is a bit divided on how to deal with them ..... my suggestion is to do the appeals , for several reasons

one being if IF it gets to court then you will be shown as being reasonable

a second is it builds up the case against them .... come judgment day!


I am not sure if one of the links that I gave was from some one who did win an appeal (all be it that it was at Humberside airport?) have a search though to see what they put

found it .......

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5195073

and

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5214954

Ralph:cool:

Redx

adep wrote: »

Hi all. I have just received my rejection reply that they received on 22nd April.
They have put what I should do next


1 Pay the charge 2 x £60 by the 29th may
or
2 appeal to the IAS


it also states and I quote" please note we are proceeding on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question unless you are able to prove the contrary"


Would anyone be willing to help me with what is the best route to take.
Many Thanks

funny how they always forget to put your third option in the list

ie

3) Ignore !

so do the IAS appeal, if that fails, ignore for 6 years unless court papers arrive

Guys_Dad

There are a couple of contemporary JLA threads on page 1 at the moment. I would advise reading them - particularly about the byelaws - and consider any advice given already.

Northlakes

Having looked at the PP blog and following comments, a challenge on the validity of contract between VCS and Peel Holdings may shed some light on why VCS are reluctant to go to court.

adep_2

Northlakes wrote: »

Having looked at the PP blog and following comments, a challenge on the validity of contract between VCS and Peel Holdings may shed some light on why VCS are reluctant to go to court.

Can you shed some light on this for me please

adep_2

Redx wrote: »

funny how they always forget to put your third option in the list

ie

3) Ignore !

so do the IAS appeal, if that fails, ignore for 6 years unless court papers arrive

Where does all this stand with debt collectors etc etc

Northlakes

I looked up the website mentioned in the PP blog and there are a couple of interesting articles when you look at the JLA cases and Beavis. These articles look at the way companies work in concert with a resultant action of loss to a third party.
http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/banking-and-finance/7150-a-new-lease-of-life-for-unlawful-means-conspiracy

Ralph-y

re debt collectors ....
please read post #4 of the newbie thread

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822


if you don't we will all come round and knock on your door and send in the elephants and other scary things :rotfl:

Ralph:cool: