Advice please - Letter Before Claim - Doncaster Airport - stopping in a no stopping zone

supertallguy

Apologies, I have amended my first post.


To be clear, you do not ignore the PCN's but appeal using the standard template in the 'Newbies' topic.


I too am unsure of the £100 fee and the way the £19 hourly costs have been calculated in the suggested LBC reply letter - I may omit these due to not understanding this - at the moment.

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

@ Beamer


Why will the OP be faced with a £100 set aside fee to pay over this???


You only pay a £100 set aside fee when applying for a set aside by consent, and that would be following receipt of a default CCJ, which the defendant wants to pay but is too late to do so and get the CCJ removed from the records.


This is not the case in this thread

This was a weird typo error.
.... it's £100 fee to contest jurisdiction, not 'set aside'.

See Webster1's thread from pepipoo

This line of attack suggested was originally from bargepole

supertallguy

Hi,


Please see a copy of my response to the LBC below - I have omitted any reference to costs (rightly or wrongly I just want this to be settled and not too fussed about the costs - at the moment - I stand to be corrected....)


I have found the airport byelaws - out of interest and the letter refers to them specifically so I best have a copy.


I have used the letter that was mentioned in an earlier post but amended to suit my case:


Reply:


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 xxth September 2018 regarding: VCSxxxxxxx..
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 the brake 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.

• 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.

Regards,

Registered Vehicle Keeper



Do I also send in the 'reply form' or will this letter suffice?


Finally - do I sign it or just leave as RTK?


Thanks

Umkomaas

Dear Jake,

You are joking aren't you? 'Dear Jake'? !!!!!! this guy is trying to screw you out of a chunk of money and if you don't give it to him, he's threatening to sue you in court. OMG. I wouldn't even put in a 'Dear'. Just 'Sir' will be enough.

Regards,

Registered Vehicle Keeper

..... it gets worse. 'Regards' to someone looking to do you harm? Would you be equally friendly and pleasant to a mugger who jumped you for your wallet in a back street?

This is a business letter leading to a potential court appearance. 'Yours faithfully'!

it does not conform to the PAP for Debts guide and regulations.

List the points of non-conformity and require VCS to provide the information to which you are entitled under those points.

[STRIKE]Nor[/STRIKE] the driver [STRIKE]or[/STRIKE] any passenger leaves or enters the car during this short stop.

Neither the driver nor any passenger leaves or enters the car during this short stop.

The rest looks ok, but I've not got a legally trained eye for this stuff - others may comment, but with the loss (hopefully temporary) of Coupon-mad from the forum, getting any detailed critiques of the legal end of things is likely to be very sparse.

Finally - do I sign it or just leave as RTK?

Sign it with a squiggle (not your real signature).

Why would you want to withhold your name?

supertallguy

Comments noted. I’ll have a look at the PAP guide for debts and will post an updated letter.

supertallguy

Updated letter below. What do you guys think?

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

Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter, reference Letter Before Claim dated xx 2018 regarding: VCSxxxxxxx.
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 Pre-Action Protocol for Debts guide and regulations. Exerts detailed below:


AIMS OF THE PROTOCOL

2.1 This Protocol’s aims are to –

(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
procedure;

I have not been offered a method of alternative dispute resolution – I have been given a fine and now a letter with the intention of taking the registered keeper to court.

(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue);

The fine is not reasonable or proportionate.

(d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

No steps taken to settle the matter via alternative dispute resolution.

5. DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.

Please provide documents to support how the amount owed is calculated.

6 TAKING STEPS TO SETTLE THE MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

6.1 If the parties still cannot agree about the existence, enforceability, amount or any other aspect of the debt, they should both take appropriate steps to resolve the dispute without starting court proceedings and, in particular, should consider the use of an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

At no point has an ADR been discussed.

6.2 ADR may simply take the form of discussion and negotiation, or it may involve some more formal process such as a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service where the dispute concerns a debt regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

As comment for 6.1.

• Looking at the video evidence sent to me by a member of your team in an earlier correspondence, I see my vehicle pulled up for a duration of under one minute with the brake 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."

• Neither the driver nor 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.

• 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.

Yours Faithfully,

Umkomaas

Updated letter below. What do you guys think?

You don't seem to have asked for very much that you might be entitled to under the PaP. The only request, from my skim read, is this:

Please provide documents to support how the amount owed is calculated.

If that's all you want, then that's ok, but you must have other things you'd need to understand their purported case against you.

Also, please remember that this response is more written for the eyes of any potential Judge, to show that you have tried to 'narrow the issues' before it gets to court and the PPC has been 'unreasonable' in not providing them. It's extremely unlikely that your response to the PPC will get this cancelled, but it does show them that you're not someone who is likely to meekly lie down and pay them.

I'd be careful in the letter that you don't go off on any 'rant' - remember, it could end up under the scrutiny of a Judge.

supertallguy

Thanks for the reply.

I’ll have another look at it and amend as I see fit.

Is there anything I should be asking for specifically? Think I should reference the byelaws in there too?

It may make it more robust.

I’m attempting to avoid making it sound like a rant - definitely want a composed/professional response.

Thanks

nosferatu1001

Well, what documents would help you?
Landowner contract? Copies of any signs they claim create the contract? Etc.

supertallguy

Hi, OK, apologies for the delay -I broke my leg at the weekend - so still in hospital waiting on an operation.


I've had a sort out of the letter and focused on the byelaws mainly as I think this is where they seem to fall down. I have added reasoning below the effected byelaws:

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

Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter, reference Letter Before Claim dated *****ber 2018 regarding: VCS*******.
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 Pre-Action Protocol for Debts guide and regulations. Exerts detailed below:


AIMS OF THE PROTOCOL

2.1 This Protocol’s aims are to –

(b) enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
procedure;

I have not been offered a method of alternative dispute resolution – I have been given a fine and now a letter with the intention of taking the registered keeper to court.

(c) encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue);

The fine is not reasonable or proportionate.

(d) support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

No steps taken to settle the matter via alternative dispute resolution.

5. DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.

Please provide documents to support how the amount owed is calculated. Please provide a copy of the Landowner contract and copies of any signs and/or documents that you claim to have created a contract between the registered keeper and yourselves/landowners.

6. TAKING STEPS TO SETTLE THE MATTER AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

6.1 If the parties still cannot agree about the existence, enforceability, amount or any other aspect of the debt, they should both take appropriate steps to resolve the dispute without starting court proceedings and, in particular, should consider the use of an appropriate form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

At no point has an ADR been discussed.

6.2 ADR may simply take the form of discussion and negotiation, or it may involve some more formal process such as a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service where the dispute concerns a debt regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

As comment for 6.1 above.

• Looking at the video evidence sent to me by a member of your team in an earlier correspondence, I see my vehicle pulled up for a duration of under one minute with the brake 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(2) Not to cause danger with a Vehicle - use, cause or permit to be used, any Vehicle in such a way as to cause or to be likely to cause, danger or nuisance to any person.”

• Reviewing the footage taken of the vehicle, the vehicle has not caused a danger or nuisance to any person.

" 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.”

• Neither the driver nor any passenger leaves or enters the car during this short stop.

“5(4) Obstruction causing danger - except in an emergency, when in charge of a Vehicle cause or permit the Vehicle to stand so as to cause any obstruction, or so as to be likely to cause danger to Aircraft, person or property.”

• The vehicle has not caused danger due to obstruction to an aircraft, person or property. 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

“5(11) Failure to comply with a direction - when the driver of a Vehicle without reasonable excuse fail to comply with any direction for the regulation of traffic given by a Constable, Airport Official or Notice.”

• 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

• 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.

• 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.

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.

Yours Faithfully,