Another PCN Thread - Robin Hood

Le_Kirk

Eveniskey wrote: »

That is what's stopping me from sending a link to imgur or uploading an image, I've too few posts at this point, unfortunately.

That is why you were given the advice in the second quote in post #8. When you have your URL such as https://dropbox........ just change it to hxxps://dropbox......... and one of the regulars will make your link live after checking it is safe.

Eveniskey

Le_Kirk wrote: »

just change it to hxxps://dropbox......... and one of the regulars will make your link live after checking it is safe.

Ahh so sorry, I didn't read that properly. I've been on the move since about 4am this morning, that's my excuse...

Here it is then: hxxps://imgur.com/a/ATd0zg6

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Here is your link checked and made live: -
https://imgur.com/a/ATd0zg6

Coupon-mad

Go for:

The Charge Notice was not fixed to my vehicle

Which is safe for a rk, and says nothing, really!

Eveniskey

I have made my appeal using the advice above. Thanks for all your help, I will send updates along the way.

All the best

Eveniskey

UPDATE:

So, I appealed using the template from the sticky and the advice above. It was - obviously - rejected.

They sent me all images as proof, which was actually not more images but a video of the whole <50 seconds of the car being stopped. Cleverly they cut the video right before the car pulls off again so it isn't clear that the duration of the stop was so short.

I then received another letter or two which I ignored.

Now, I've received a LBC from Vehicle Control Services. I'm going to follow the advice and respond with a letter but I wanted to see if anyone has any advice on how I should respond? I've been reading through the forum and there are other examples but some are quite old now, others don't quite fit my situation so I'd love some advice for my particular situation.

This is starting to get me down and I want to give myself the best possible chance of getting through this without having to hand over any money to these vultures.

Redx

just find a recent B W LEGAL lbc rebuttal and send that, keep playing tennis until after the 6 month deadline has elapsed

doesnt really matter what is said as long as the driver is not revealed

deny , deny , deny , prove what you are alleging blah blah

people dont need to be in "your situation" to know what is the best action here

but as with all airport , port and train tickets, its play tennis until the 6 months deadline has passed


I think BARGEPOLE may have written something on this in the last few months, so check his posts regarding non-POFA incidents

Eveniskey

Thanks Redx, that's great. I'll follow your advice.

All the best -

The_Deep

A warning light on the dashboard could be very serious, brake failure for instance. IMO, the PPC should have cancelled the invoice.

I doubt if a judge would buy breach of contract, even if the land was not covered by bye laws. Let them try court, and lodge a counter claim for harassment.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.
for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Eveniskey

I would be grateful if anybody could take a look at my drafted response to the LBC and give any advice/suggestions on ways to improve:

Litigation & Debt Department
Vehicle Control Services Limited,
Unit 2 Europa Court ,
Sheffield Business Park,
Sheffield, S9 1XE


Dear Jake,

I am in receipt of your letter, reference Letter Before Claim dated 20th September, 2018.
I strongly reject your claim and am completely bemused at the idea that any terms and conditions could have been breached as at no point were any accepted or even requested to be accepted.

A few things I would like to point out:

• Although your letter is headed LETTER BEFORE CLAIM, it does not conform to the PAP for Debts guide and regulations.

• Looking at the video evidence sent to me by you or a member of your team in an earlier correspondence, I see my vehicle pulled up for a duration of under one minute with hazard lights turned on, suggesting the driver had good reason to come to a temporary stop. This is fully allowed and permitted in the byelaws:

" 5(3) Obstruction except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice."

• Nor the driver or any passenger leaves or enters the car during this short stop.

• Further, the original PCN is a parking charge and the Contravention reason: is 46) STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITED.
Therefore, there is no liability accrued to the keeper under POFA, which is strictly limited to parking matters. Furthermore, the land is Not Relevant Land for the purposes of POFA and therefore can NEVER be any liability to the keeper.

• I've since looked at the signage on the road, of which this claim is based, and as far as I'm concerned, this is not signage I have ever been asked to keep an eye out for whilst driving and I imagine the same would go for the driver of the vehicle. If at any point the need for me to further investigate this matter, I am sure I will find that there are many reasons why these signs are not legitimate.

• It is stated that this road is private, therefore you/the landowner can claim whatever you/they like. Yet it is quite clearly a public thoroughfare regularly used as access to not only an international airport but also a number of businesses and even a school.

• If the reasoning for this request for payment is because of any potential obstruction caused by the vehicle in this moment, then it must be pointed out that the person taking this video used as evidence is quite clearly causing a similar level of obstruction on the other side of the road.

This 'charge' is at best opportunist and obscene and must be cancelled. It is a cause of unnecessary stress and a waste of time for everyone involved.
Any attempt to pursue through the court will result in an application to strike out for a no cause of action against the keeper OR any possible driver, and there will be no costs protection available to your client. I will pursue for full costs at £19 per hour.

Regards,

Registered Vehicle Keeper