Please help: Urgent advice needed

tom_cahill

Redx wrote: »

was the windscreen ticket a myparkingcharge notice ?

Yes it was

Redx

tom_cahill wrote: »

Yes it was

in which case it is not a proper windscreen parking charge notice under POFA2012, it is a warning to the driver (this subject has been done to death on here)

so now that we know that , then VCS had to send the RK the NTK by day 15 following each incident in order to comply with POFA2012

meaning they had to get the RK details from the DVLA and issue and post each of the NTK by day 13 to get it to the RK by day 15 following each incident

therefore you need to check the date on each NTK and then the date each one arrived as well

the 29 to 56 days option does not apply in this case

I suggest you answer point 3) for ticket 1 and ticket 2 again, IN FULL this time, as these dates are crucial


so you have incident date, date of NTK letter and date of arrival for each NTK , so 3 dates for each one

tom_cahill

Redx wrote: »

in which case it is not a proper windscreen parking charge notice under POFA2012, it is a warning to the driver (this subject has been done to death on here)

so now that we know that , then VCS had to send the RK the NTK by day 15 following each incident in order to comply with POFA2012

meaning they had to get the RK details from the DVLA and issue and post each of the NTK by day 13 to get it to the RK by day 15 following each incident

therefore you need to check the date on each NTK and then the date each one arrived as well

the 29 to 56 days option does not apply in this case

I suggest you answer point 3) for ticket 1 and ticket 2 again, IN FULL this time, as these dates are crucial


so you have incident date, date of NTK letter and date of arrival for each NTK , so 3 dates for each one

Just been looking for the letters but so far unsuccessful. I will have them somewhere.

Assuming that they played by the rules with dates, what should be my next step?

Pirate_Parker

Your next step would be to fully dissect the letters to find any and all reasons why driver and or keeper liability does not exist using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (Google this and click the legislation.gov link - can't post links because I'm still new.)

Redx

post #1 says that VCS know who the driver was (I have no idea how they know this)

so if they do know who the driver was and are sending them these letters, then POFA2012 is irrelevant

by all means send the VCS DPO a SAR using GDPR and get all their evidence including the 2 NTK,s

yes study them for POFA compliance but it wont help if they know who was driving

also send VCS legal a LBC rebuttal as well, plus gather your own evidence like pictures of signs, lease, landowner contract or landlord contract, WS from the landowner or landlord etc

lastly, complain LOUDLY to the M.A. and get them cancelled asap

tom_cahill

Redx wrote: »

post #1 says that VCS know who the driver was (I have no idea how they know this)

so if they do know who the driver was and are sending them these letters, then POFA2012 is irrelevant

by all means send the VCS DPO a SAR using GDPR and get all their evidence including the 2 NTK,s

yes study them for POFA compliance but it wont help if they know who was driving

also send VCS legal a LBC rebuttal as well, plus gather your own evidence like pictures of signs, lease, landowner contract or landlord contract, WS from the landowner or landlord etc

lastly, complain LOUDLY to the M.A. and get them cancelled asap

Because they initially accused my GF who is the RK so when I appealed I stated I was the driver at the time.

Can you recommend a good template for the SAR and for the rebuttal please?

tom_cahill

I'm also thinking about there being a case for inadequate signage. The car park is U-shaped and from my space there is only one sign visible which cannot be read at all from my space. There are also no signs on entry. I have the photograph that VCS took as evidence to post if it would help?

tom_cahill

Any suggestions? I'm starting to feel a bit panicked about getting this sorted.

The_Deep

Any suggestions? I'm starting to feel a bit panicked about getting this sorted.

In "own space" tickets, the identity of the driver is largely immaterial, as is signage, contract, POFA, timeframes, et al.

What usually wins is primacy of contract, i.e. the rights you enjoy through your AST/landlord's lease which trump the often unlawful T&C which the scammer relies on to form a contract

If that does not mention parking permits, charging residents who do not display them, etc., they may well be Friar Tucked.

Read this

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

and complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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 has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

.

tom_cahill

The_Deep wrote: »

Any suggestions? I'm starting to feel a bit panicked about getting this sorted.

In "own space" tickets, the identity of the driver is largely immaterial, as is signage, contract, POFA, timeframes, et al.

What usually wins is primacy of contract, i.e. the rights you enjoy through your AST/landlord's lease which trump the often unlawful T&C which the scammer relies on to form a contract

If that does not mention parking permits, charging residents who do not display them, etc., they may well be Friar Tucked.

Read this


and complain to your MP

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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 has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

.

Thanks for this.

I have a copy for the lease and the lease is specifically for the parking space that my Landlord bought several years ago.

The lease states that:

'The company covenants with the purchaser:
Quiet Enjoyment:
(1) To allow the purchaser (subject to compliance with the Terms of this Lease) to hold and enjoy The Property throughout the Term without any interruption by the Company or any person lawfully claiming under or in trust for it"

The Property referred to is the car parking space itself.

How does that look?