Vehicle Control Services Limited (Again!)

Pinnocent

A colleague received a PCN "Notice to Keeper" letter from VCS last year - completely out of the blue, having apparently not seen any form of ticket. They thought the letter was a scam.

About a month later they received a "Final Reminder" letter. Again, they thought it was a scam - as there was no apparent 'evidence' of any wrong-doing.

They have recently received a "Letter before Claim" (in red) saying that the matter had now been passed to their Legal Department in order to recover monies. This was accompanied by an Information Sheet and a Reply Form - which having skimmed through it, looks like a pretty disgraceful 'honey trap' whereby they are expected to admit to something...and then complete a "Standard Financial Statement" declaring their salary, outgoings, loans, etc!

Having read a number of posts on this site, I'm not sure what I should recommend now that this issue has got to this stage.

Any advice/guidance please?

System

"Standard Financial Statement"

There is a recognised SFS which "debtor" companies use. May I see it to check if it is the genuine SFS or a scam.

See http://malg.org.uk/launch-date-of-the-standard-financial-statement-confirmed/

Note the comment about following a Code of Practice.

https://sfs.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/what-is-the-standard-financial-statement

Note the comment about the SFS not being for public use either.

The_Deep

For how much are they asking?

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.

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.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

There is a recognised SFS which "debtor" companies use. May I see it to check if it is the genuine SFS or a scam.

See http://malg.org.uk/launch-date-of-the-standard-financial-statement-confirmed/

Note the comment about following a Code of Practice.

https://sfs.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/what-is-the-standard-financial-statement

Note the comment about the SFS not being for public use either.

You can certainly trust IamEmanresu to help you with his legal knowledge and specific expertise, and genuine approach.

Pinnocent

The initial "Charge" was £100. This has now increased to £160, plus £25 "estimated Court fees".

Pinnocent

Many Thanks for your response - apologies for the belated reply.

I have shared the SFS at the following link:
hxxps://1drv.ms/u/s!ArpaKnkwK630qJlrgJNO5UnWTISVjQ

Hope this helps?

Fruitcake

Pinnocent wrote: »

Many Thanks for your response - apologies for the belated reply.

I have shared the SFS at the following link:
hxxps://1drv.ms/u/s!ArpaKnkwK630qJlrgJNO5UnWTISVjQ

Hope this helps?

https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArpaKnkwK630qJlrgJNO5UnWTISVjQ

Fruitcake

It is a scam, but unfortunately shouldn't have been ignored.

Your colleague will need to follow the guide to court written by bargepole from post 2 of the NEWBIES that takes you through step by step from LBC to the court appearance.

There is no requirement to fill in that statement, but one with lots of zeros in the income boxes and lots of two and three figure numbers in the outgoings boxes would be "fun."

In addition to following the court guide, your colleague should complain to his/her MP about this unregulated scam using the information in red from post 1 of the NEWBIES.

Pinnocent

I'm currently involved in two parallel sets of posts with our friends at VCS, where I have followed the same process for both (Many Thanks everyone).

Just starting to prepare a Witness Statement, and having read the excellent (and epic) post from AdamBuzz, I have one quick question - what is the guidance around dates from POFA, as it seems the Claimant issued the PCN/NTK six days after the alleged "Contravention" date?

As far as I am aware, no 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' envelope was left on the windscreen...and this is stated in the Claimants Witness Statement/Defence.

Redx

POFA includes both timescales and wording

the NTK has to arrive by day 15 so they may have followed that part (and only that part)

I do not believe that the wording and warnings on their NTK,s back then met POFA, so they probably failed various aspects of POFA including wording etc (even if the NTK arrived in time)

Coupon-mad

Basically there are two ways to try to hold a keeper liable using a NTK and one is as per paragraph 8 and one as per paragraph 9 of the POFA Sch 4.

VCS and a couple of other PPCs mix (conflate) the two routes, with their 'not a PCN' model and (whilst the DVLA has turned a blind eye to it) as you've seen in Adambuzz' thread, this is refutable in court if you can persuade the Judge to see what's in front of their face.

It's obviously misleading and confusing for drivers & keepers and contrary to the POFA and arguably an unfair term due to lack of clarity, transparency and certainty of contract and liability.

And it's arguably against the DPA because VCS obtain the keeper's data too early, having given the driver what has (despite the heading pretending that it's not) all appearances of a Notice to Driver, yet no true timeline to appeal it that normally applies (28 days).

IMHO, the contra proferentum doctrine could be mentioned in defence as well by a keeper, because if terms (especially terms regarding dates and details about transferring liability to a keeper) are in any way ambiguous, then the interpretation that most favours a consumer MUST prevail (that's trite law).

The interpretation that most favours a keeper is that keeper liability has NOT passed.