VCS - error in LBC!

matt_matt51

Hi All

Along with a number of people on here, I received an LBC from VCS this week. This is for a historic PCN from 2015. I have responded to every letter (including BW Legal) asking for evidence that the car was even parked there, they have permission and their calculation etc. They didn't even bother to respond or acknowledge the last request.

I'm about to reply requesting an SAR. However, we have noticed that the LBC is asking for a different amount, and there is no explanation why.
Previous calculations were £100 PCN and £54 in initial legal costs from BW Legal. The LBC states £160. Is this discrepancy grounds to force them to cancel, or is it generally errors on the PCN where this is an option? I have noticed that a number of people on here are stating the £160 LBC so fingers crossed this could help several of us.

If this isn't an option we will still fight this as from day 1 i have asked for documentation to support their claim. I've had nothing other than continual threats of increase costs and court proceedings. Same old story really.

Thanks all.

DoaM

The LBC can be for whatever they want. IF it goes to an actual claim then you argue that anything over the £100 PCN (other than court costs) is double-recovery and not claimable - they didn't actually incur any debt recovery costs and you'd put them to strict proof of this.

Coupon-mad

Is this discrepancy grounds to force them to cancel,

Far from it, but you can use it in the defence and Witness statement to paint a truthful picture that they are making the sums up out of thin air.

Bear in mind that VCS are also filing some of their own cases without BW Legal and with no debt collector or initial legal costs added at all (despite using BW Legal letters, then cutting loose and filing those claims without them) it cannot be reasonably argued that the debt collector letters BW Legal send, pre-LBC stage, incur any costs whatsoever.

You will need to put them to 'strict proof' in your defence and at the hearing.

Also, The POFA and the Beavis case both support the contention that PPCs cannot add damages and extra costs, bolting them on top of a parking charge that ALREADY covers (with some 80% profit on top) the letter-sending business model.

They can't inflate the parking charge to £100 and send letters to get a profit, then pretend that sending the very same letters have caused a 'loss'.

matt_matt51

Thanks for the advice. Really appreciate it. I'm at the point of requesting a SAR. I have asked on multiple occasions for the information, but this was pre-GDPR.

Looking for holes in the claim if you have any further guidance:

Where do the rules stand on the fact that when the car was parked, an officer (from VCS) watched the driver park (sat in a car watching with no other cars in the car park). They made no attempt to point out the drivers mistake (genuine mistake), effectively allowing the driver to park and walk away. As soon as the driver was out of sight, the ticket was issued.

There is confusion with the retail park as there is an access road that divides two separate retail parks, rather than one retail park with an access road in the middle! The drivers mistake was to think that it was one retail park.

VCS were basically waiting to see if anyone parked and walked over to the other side of the access road, to then issue their invoice. There was nothing stopping them pointing out the drivers mistake. I feel there is an element of entrapment in doing that. Although I don't know if i am clutching at straws with that (feel i might be).


The other thing is that the ticket was issued on a date where all the shops on that side of the access road were closed. I therefore question why the land owner incurred losses for the drivers mistake!?!

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

I therefore question why the land owner incurred losses for the drivers mistake!?!

Errm, you have a lot to learn.

NEVER question ''loss''. Read ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

And is it the same retail park as this similar case?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5973513/ntk-for-pcn-access-road-at-retail-park-in-pontefract

Read that, then go and read the thread by RichieBoy56, and read VCS v Ward case and VCS v Crutchley as mentioned in his thread today.

Utterly diabolical appeal level 'decisions'.

VCS and the Judges in question should hang their heads in shame IMHO if they can't distinguish a 'no-stopping' scam site with a lurking camera car, from Beavis.

matt_matt51

Its been a while since researching this. 2014 was the last time.


It isn't the Pontefract retail park. It's one in Chesterfield. The claim was issued whist the car was parked in a bay, but in the wrong retail park. Although in appearahce it is one retail park with an access road. It transpires that they are two seperate retail parks. The ticket was issued as the driver parked the car and walked to the other retail park (over the access road). This was clearly witnessed by the VCS attendant who waited to pounce as soon as the driver was out of sight!


We've had all the usual letters as the keeper, including BW Leagal (I asked them to refer back to their cliant). Since this letter in 2016 neither BW Legal or VCS responded. Now 3 years on VCS have issued a template LBC.


My draft letter so far is simply pointing out the lack of communication, dispute their claim including that they have made their best efforts to recover the debt, as well as pointed out they are not in accordance to the Pre-action Protocol. I was then going to raise a SAR.


However, although I need to respond before the end of next week, I need to add more content.


I'll give the links a more thorough read, but i don't think im too far off the mark in reaponding to the LBC.