Vehicle Control Services - myparkingcharge.co.uk

dan0292

Hi all,

I'm new to signing up for this forum and wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction. I have read the newbie section and FAQ's but I don't think it quite answers what I need.

First of all I have received a PCN NTK from Vehicle Control Services where my vehicle over stayed their 2 hour limit - however this was delivered to my previous address, this is my parents house which is the only reason I have seen it - but 4 weeks after it arrived.

My first main issue with the NTK is that it was sent in September for an offence that happened over 12 weeks before it was issued (which is reflected in the dates on the NTK), I think I'm right to assume that under PoFA rules they cannot enforce myself as keeper liable for this penalty due to being over 14 days since the offence. (this was an ANPR)

When I was first aware of this charge, it was already over the 28 days so therefore the charge rose from £60 to £100, I did some research on here and was going to appeal over the online appeals procedure on myparkingcharge.co.uk, however when given a list options on reason for appeal, there wasn't anything regarding time of issue etc. or 'other'.

Being busy and forgetful I then forgot to appeal and have come back to sort today, the option to appeal online has now disappeared and the charge is now £160.

I don't know where to start now as I am not sure if I am too late but there are some main points which i think may be helpful:
1. NTK was delivered to wrong address (DVLA know my new address and have done for 2 years)
2. The NTK was issued over 12 weeks after the offence.
3. How do i now appeal as there is not an email address on the letters?

Am i too late to appeal? Or can i still argue that the keeper shouldn't be liable to pay this charge? What is my first step?

Thanks in advance

Fruitcake

Start by contacting the DVLA to confirm they have your correct address and it has been correct for the last 2 years.
Also ask who requested your personal data and when, including VRN. Give them a date before that of the alleged event (it's not an offence) and a date after the NTK arrived.
You will need to do this in writing. State that you believe this service is free of charge.

If the scammers have obtained incorrect keeper data by some other means then you can go on the attack, but you can't really do much except ignore debt collectors until you know the facts.

You are correct that liability cannot be transferred to the keeper unless the NTK arrives within 14 days where ANPR is used. This is why you need to ask the DVLA both questions.

dan0292

Thanks for your reply and advice, I will get onto contacting DVLA requesting this info.

dan0292

Hi,

I have had confirmation from DVLA that my details including address are correct on their system.

They have also confirmed that they have not had any D888 requests on my driver record.

What should my next steps be?

beamerguy

dan0292 wrote: »

Hi,

I have had confirmation from DVLA that my details including address are correct on their system.

They have also confirmed that they have not had any D888 requests on my driver record.

What should my next steps be?

Have you had parking ticket(s) before this ???

Quentin

Send the template appeal in the Newbies FAQ near the top of the forum and add a paragraph in bold confirming your correct address for correspondence


(Otherwise you may end up with a default CCJ you know nothing about blighting your credit status/records

Coupon-mad

As above, and you can email a copy to the Data Protection Officer* at VCS too, insisting that the old address is erased (as is your right, under the GDPR, so say so!).



*see VCS' Privacy page for contacting their DPO

dan0292

Hi all,

Just a quick update, I have now received a claim from the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE.

I have prepared a defence as below, is there anything i should add/remove/edit before sending off.

Thanks



IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. ********

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
********* (Defendant)

____________

DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £160, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

3. On the material date the facts are that the vehicle ******* entered ******** at *******, the vehicle left the car park the same day – the exact time cannot be confirmed as per section 4 below.

4. On the original PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) the time stamp on the ‘TIME OF EXIT’ image doesn’t show a clear time stamp, therefore, does not confirm or deny with the stated time of exit of *******.

5. The ‘International Parking Community’ (of which Vehicles Services Limited are a member) states in their code of practise in 15.2 that ‘Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired’. Taking this into account means that the Defendant’s vehicle was only 16 minutes over the period rather than the 26 minutes, this doesn’t justify losses to the Claimant of the originally requested £100.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. There is also no clear signage that states anybody parking in the car park, that they are entering into any contract. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage can create a legally binding contract.

7. 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 when parking at ********* on ********. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 9(4) states that the NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) must be delivered to the current address for service for the keeper within the relevant period. Section 9(5) states this period is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. With the date of ******* the NTK should have been received by the Defendant by ******* (this is considering the NTK is delivered on the second working day after being posted – stated in Section 9(6)). The NTK was issued (as stated on the NTK) on *******, this is 88 days after the contravention date, therefore breaching the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim 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.

onlyfoolsandparking

Regulars will be along to critique and help with your defence in due course.


Good luck with fighting this, VCS and their scummy sister company Excel are a particularly nasty bunch of scammers and if you follow the excellent advice given here you stand a good chance of giving them a real kicking in Court.


Don't forget to claim for YOUR costs.

The_Deep

Complain to your MP.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?