Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

Coupon-mad

I again ask

You need to sort out that split infinitive, as it really grated when I read it! And this needs the end bit removed to make it read better:

in compensation for my distress and that of my family, caused by your baseless and nasty financial attack. [STRIKE]on me is causing me.[/STRIKE]

Apart from that, good letter, especially attaching your previous one again. Email this if you have a VCS email addy (info@...?) no snail mail letters that they can deny receiving or refuse to sign for (don't waste your money).

RichieBoy56

Thanks C-m, much appreciated (and the grammar lesson!)

RichieBoy56

Hi all,
I have received another letter from VCS in response to my LBS rebuttal (link below).
hxxps://postimg.cc/image/tn4ljjgjv/

They state that they are satisfied that their Letter Before Claim meets the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol although it is clearly deficient. How to I challenge this? Just repeat what I said in my previous letter?

Regarding keeper liability they say that they can utilise Schedule 4 of POFA, but I am sure that they have not complied with those requirements. For instance the NTK did not indicate the period that the car was parked, just the contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
They also say that in the alternative they will seek to rely upon the Law of Agency. Are they suggesting that the driver was acting as my agent? They have not quoted a case reference. Surely they have to state which they will be relying on? How do I shoot this one down?
They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?
They state that a contract was established by quoting ParkingEye v Beavis. I didn’t think that was relevant here.
They claim to have included a site overhead plan but this was not provided.

The main thrust of my defence will be that I was not the driver. I cannot see that they can use POFA2012 as their NTK does not comply in a couple of areas:

• NTK did not state period that car was parked, just a contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
• They haven’t stated that a NTD was placed on the car (it was the myparkingcharge thing) but say that the contravention was brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage.

I am correct in thinking that this is enough to stop them using POFA?

As they are not claiming to have placed an NTD on the car then I believe they should have waited 28 days before obtaining my details from the DVLA. A NTK was received within a few days. Is this misuse of my data?

Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

You are looking at the wrong thing on the NTK...how do so many people miss the really obvious giveaway that it's a non POFA NTK, the words that say they will continue to pursue you 'on the assumption you were the driver'?

Compare that to 9(2)f of Schedule 4.

Forget the other little issues.

They also say that in the alternative they will seek to rely upon the Law of Agency. Are they suggesting that the driver was acting as my agent? They have not quoted a case reference. Surely they have to state which they will be relying on? How do I shoot this one down?

By searching the forum for CPS v AJH Films to find loads written before.

They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?

You can't, you have no right to see it yet. Forget it. They will have to produce it before a hearing, in evidence later.

Quentin

You say you want to rely on POFA


Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you


You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

RichieBoy56

Thanks for the quick reply Coupon-mad. I have read through 9(2)f of Schedule 4 and I'm not getting it. Can you elaborate please?

Coupon-mad

Copy out 9(2)f.

Then compare that warning, to what they've said about liability, in the NTK. It says 'on the assumption you were the driver' doesn't it?

Where do you see that in Schedule 4 at all? You DON'T. Assuming a keeper was the actual driver is the complete opposite of the law.

RichieBoy56

I did think that it was perhaps something that was not stated in the POFA, but what about the right to recover in (ii) below?


(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

RichieBoy56

C-m, the NTK does not say 'on the assumption you were the driver'. It says 'we will have the right to recover from you, the keeper, any unpaid balance of the parking charge'. Do you think that this effectively means the same thing?

Coupon-mad

Show us the NTK, both sides (redact your data).

If you already have, repeat the link rather than ask us to look back at an older post on page one.