PCN/NTK received from Vehicle Control Services

edwardo27

Hello All


PCN/NTK received from Vehicle Control Services Ltd for going over my ticket time by 25 minutes at a private car park in the centre of Newcastle. I just got to the car just as the attendant had popped his parking ticket on the car (he even gave me a smile as he walked off).


I have been stalking the MSE article on parking tickets as well as the forum all afternoon. I have also read through the FAQs so I have the general gist of what I should be doing. I actually managed to dodge a parking ticket in 2014 using the MSE Forum advice (I appealed due to lack of signage, they rejected, I ignored, debt recovery letters received, I ignored and it went away. (I am aware there are still two more years where that one could bite me on my a**).


Anyway, this time I feel I have two problems:


1. It seems the appeal information is all set up for people who actually have a case i.e. bad signage, wrong VRN entered, or tickets blowing off etc. However, I have no excuse/appeal/evidence for this one; I was half an hour late coming back to my car because I simply lost track of time with a friend. I think the signage was OK (I assume this because I never actually read them but I do remember visible signs knocking around).


2. I was in my partner’s car and it is registered at his parents address. I feel very uncomfortable with them receiving the impending threatening letters. I was all up for my partner notifying VCS that I was the driver so the letters come to me but I have subsequently read in the forum that doing this is a big 'no no'.


So I guess I'm asking:


1. Can I still appeal with no evidence/excuse and on what grounds?


2. If I can appeal, how do I get them to send the letters to my address without admitting liability?


Any help is greatly appreciated.

KeithP

Your partner, as the vehicle's registered keeper, should be the one appealing.

He should send the blue text appeal already written for him in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Send in unchanged - no alterations or additions necessary.

The registered keeper should also advise VCS in writing of his current address.
For two reasons -
1) it avoids the possibility of VCS sneaking a possible County Court Judgment against him without him having the opportunity to defend himself.
2) it means his parents won't be inconvenienced by all the debt collector's mail.

Redx

do not read or use the MSE advice


stick to the advice in that NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum

edwardo27

Thanks Keith - can I ask them to change the address within the appeal you mention, or do I have to do that separately?

The_Deep

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.

edwardo27

UPDATE:

Appealed on behalf of my partner (he just urged me to pay it). I used the blue text appeal already written on post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. I sent unchanged. Obviously, they rejected and I have gone on to ignore three or four debt collector letters.

Now, we are at Letter Before Claim stage. So as per the NEWBIES FAQ, I have sent a SAR to VCS via email and letter. I have also sent VCS the letter to tell them that I have sent the SAR and the case should be put on hold.

I know that it is also suggested to contact DVLA but I don’t want to do THAT on behalf of partner because that could be considered fraud I guess.

Let me know if there is anything I have missed at this stage, otherwise I will wait for the claim and start drafting a defence. (Really hoping this doesn’t go to court, I’m not sure my partner will go to court – he just wanted me to pay it!)

KeithP

You say you have done everything 'on behalf of my partner '.

Are you saying that everything, e.g. the initial appeal, was sent in his name, or something else?

It is most important that the keeper should be the one appealing, not the keeper's partner appealing on behalf of the keeper.

Do you see the subtle difference?

edwardo27

Sorry, everything is in his name but its me doing the work. Checking this forum, writing the appeal etc all as him.

KeithP

That's fine.

Secretaries across the world do exactly the same thing don't they?

I see nothing wrong with sending an email in the same manner to the DVLA.

Coupon-mad

I know that it is also suggested to contact DVLA but I don’t want to do THAT on behalf of partner because that could be considered fraud I guess.

No it's fine if you are emailing as him...as long as he is happy you are doing so.

edwardo27

Hello all.


I have my Claim Form through. I have two jobs so its been difficult to get the time to put a defence together and I'm getting close to my deadline. I'm hoping someone can have a check through what Ive drafted from other claims. Much appreciated.

• The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it. The Defendant has no recollection of the material day which is not a memorable event or date, and as such, the driver's identity is unknown unless the Claimant has that evidence.
  The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict keeper liability provisions, and nor can they make any assumption that a keeper was the driver. Henry Greenslade, eminent barrister and parking law expert in his time as Lead Adjudicator of 'PATAS' (Council PCNs) and then 'POPLA' (Private PCNs), stated in his 2015 Report about parking on private land: ''However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.''
  Should the Claimant attempt to rely yet again on the irrelevant case of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd, in an attempt to suggest to a Court that a driver 'acts on behalf of' an individual consumer registered keeper, using their well-documented and twisted interpretation of the law of agency, the Defendant points out that that there can be no agent/principal relationship between individual drivers and keepers in a family.
  
  
• It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever.
  
  1. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA). Under paragraph 8, any windscreen Notice to Driver (whether it was a 'CN' or not) must not be followed by a Notice to Keeper (NTK) until day 29 at the earliest. It is believed the Claimant sent the keeper a premature NTK, having obtained the DVLA data too early, which is a serious data protection concern, as well as a breach of the KADOE rules of the DVLA.
  2. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
  3. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
  4. Even if the Claimant attempts to rely upon paragraph 9 of the POFA, that section - introduced into the POFA Bill during the reading stages, to cater for ANPR postal PCNs where there is no warden on foot at a site - cannot apply. This Claimant and their sister company Excel Parking Services are the only parking firms issuing a hybrid 'note' on cars instead of a compliant PCN, and it is averred that they cannot have it both ways and play fast and loose with clearly stated mandatory timelines within the statute. Either there was an opportunity to apply a windscreen notice (in which case para 8 applies, and the NTK based upon data harvesting from the DVLA was unlawfully premature) or there was no opportunity and a postal NTK was the only option (paragraph 9 - but clearly this was not the case).
     
     
• Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
  
  
• The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
  
  
• It is worth noting that the Claimant firm is owned by Simon Renshaw Smith, who also owns Excel Parking Services Ltd. Both companies are fully conversant with the outcome of a persuasive Appeal hearing before HHJ Smith, sitting at Manchester County Court on 8.6.2017 regarding Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062 (Excel v Smith) where original flawed County Court decision was overturned and Excel's representative was admonished for their 'improper citation' of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd
  
  
• In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.