VCS at Flora Street, Sheffield

phil25uk

Sorry, I may have explained myself poorly:

There was one of VCS's 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' stuck to the windshield, the argument is that this is an issue as they later call this a CN. However I'm not sure that is the case here, as I imagine the CN they are referring to is the letter sent at a later date.

I'm sorry if I am confusing matters, I have built this defence by following advice from members on almost exactly the same spot/contravention, so am trying to understand all of the points they have raised before submitting it. I would be perfectly happy to remove the point regarding the CN not being a CN if I still stand a good chance of beating VCS on my other points. Personally, #11 should be enough:

11 The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area. The Claimant's signs state that these are identified by ‘hatched areas’. The registered keeper’s car was stationary in a rectangular unmarked area, and not in any roadway, walkway, entrance or exit. This area is not marked, unlike other areas nearby which are marked clearly with the cross hatch, so the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the area is restricted.

Thanks to everyone for your help so far.

Redx

the CN on the windscreen is just a warning notice, a CN or Charge Notice , but is merely a warning asking the driver to login and see if the driver has comitted an infringement

this is a well known sc@m that has been done to death on various forums over the last few years

what it IS NOT , is a Parking Charge Notice , a PCN , so it is NOT a PCN as accepted in the sense of POFA, so they would then issue a PCN , as an NTK , to the keeper, this may or may not adhere to POFA, in timescales or wording (they never used to follow POFA at all) so they rely on the law of agency, if they can make it stick

so dont put too much creedence into their CN , because it is NOT an NTD (not a Notice To Driver)

once you know that , then as a KEEPER you focus on POFA and the postal NTK, this is their first paper INVOICE that matters to a keeper


the warning you copied above seem to talk about FORBIDDING SIGNAGE , so no parking contract was on offer, nor accepted , indicating a PENALTY notice and if true, its trespassing and not a civil court matter for VCS

phil25uk

Thanks Redx.

Looking at PoFA some more I realise that I should be considering paragraph 8, not 7, as 7 deals with someone being handed a Notice to Driver, which is not the case (as we have established). Paragraph 8 is for cases where the claimant "has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9." In there, the following is written:

(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Looks like they followed the timeframes properly, as NTK was issued 10 days after alleged contravention. I think I need to remove most of the PoFA referencing points from my defence. Any thoughts?

Redx

10 days after IS WITHIN POFA, because they had to send it to ARRIVE by day 15 following the incident , where the day after is day 1

issuing an NTK after 10 days and allowing 2 days for delivery means it appears that they followed the POFA timescales

therefore you must check that the NTK did so, plus all the other caveats to meet POFA, like the warning paragraph etc

look at PE NTK,s to see compliance, check your NTK for compliance (or not) - so timescales and wording and any other must do`s


ps:- have a nosey at this one to see some suitable wording


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5913515/vehicle-control-services-myparkingcharge-co-uk

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 8 is for cases where the claimant "has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9."

No it's not. para 8 and para 9 are polar opposites, two different types.

Looks like they followed the timeframes properly, as NTK was issued 10 days after alleged contravention. I think I need to remove most of the PoFA referencing points from my defence. Any thoughts?

No.

Having read Sch4, you will surely have noticed it's not just about the timescale?

phil25uk

Thank you for your comments Coupon-mad and Redx,

I have been trying to wrap my head around PoFA for days, reading it and applying it to my case, but as you can see I am struggling. Reading back I can see that my last comments about paragraph 8/9 don't make sense.

6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.
(2)If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper must be given in accordance with paragraph 8.

This paragraph indicates to me that I should be looking at paragraph 9, as the note left on my car is not a valid notice to driver as per paragraph 7. So I am trying to see where they have not followed paragraph 9? It looks like they have followed every point. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am only playing devil's advocate against myself as I expect that is what would happen in court.

phil25uk

Okay, I have just finished reading through PoFA paragraphs 1-12 again (again again), and I cannot see any way in which my NTK, issued 12 days after the alleged contravention, is incorrect. We have established that the notice VCS affix to car windows is not a CN, therefore no valid notice to driver was given, meaning a NTK had to arrive within the relevant period of 14 days. Which it did. I have been through the NTK and ticked off each section of paragraph 9 of PoFA.

The only questionable one is 9(2)(a) "the period of parking to which the notice relates": is PoFA saying this needs to be explicitly stated? The NTK just says 'This charge relates to the period of parking (including remaining at the Car Park/Site) immediately preceding the Contravention Time specified in this Notice'.

I have been advised several times to find reasons the NTK does not comply with PoFA but I cannot, and as such feel I need to take those points out of my defence, as I feel unable to dispute anything to the contrary. Please let me know if I have missed something.

Coupon-mad

I would argue the presence of the fake 'CN' means that VCS should not have got your data until day 29 at the earliest. The POFA doesn't allow for a red note to be placed, instead of a PCN, and clearly envisages that para 9 is for ANPR remote camera PCNs.

Also, we bet that VCS have not stated the 28 days 'beginning with' properly?

phil25uk

Hello again Coupon-mad,

You are indeed correct: they have requested 'payment within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice'. Is that enough to void this NTK? I will certainly include that in my defence.

I know that you are correct about paragraph 9 being aimed at ANPR PCNs, but it is not stated explicitly. If I was VCS I would be arguing that the red note is not a Notice to Driver and therefore they complied with PoFA paragraph 9. You are much more experienced for me in the matter so I will gladly take your advice, I just want to be certain before I go any further.

Coupon-mad

There is no certainty with that argument about the red note, because VCS have invented a 'third way' and convinced the IPC and DVLA that it's OK.

All you can do is argue that it muddies the waters and that VCS obtained the data too early, as this was not a case where they could only issue a PCN by post using ANPR, which is what para 9 was written for.

Re the wording in the NTK, yes this is the error (discussed far too many times, on each and every VCS thread like it's something new!) and again, it's going to be down to what a Judge finds as fact. It is your job to use these aspects as part of a defence and cast doubt over their right to keeper liability.