We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Double Claim Forms from VCS
ThatJoeSoap
Posts: 7 Forumite
Both myself and my wife have received claim forms from Vehicle Control Services for the same car but at different dates and locations in 2015. Having done AOS on both claims I have studied the newbies and other threads for the last three weeks and pulled together the first defence due Mon 22nd July (claim date 19th June)
I think the defence covers the salient points and being aware of everyone’s valuable time I am posting to check opinion just re the specifics of this case and the use of google streetmaps evidence to defend the claim.
The circumstances were parking in the unenclosed car park of a vacant industrial unit adjacent to my wifes former workplace, which did not have sufficient spaces for the (local authority) workforce resulting in inevitable overspill on surrounding roads etc. After parking on three previous occasions when no signage was in place a ‘sting’ of parking tickets were issued to several cars with signage added afterwards by VCS.
Having checked the online historical google maps photos there is one from the month in question clearly confirming there was no signage visible. The date of the alleged breach of contract was the 11th of that month but we cannot ascertain the exact day of the google map streetview.
My wife has a record photo from the 13th of the month of VCS signage on an adjacent fence outside of the car park and not overtly in the line of sight on approach to the car park. A later google image a year on shows the full extent of signage which are three small signs on one bounding fence to the back of the car park/industrial unit and what appears to be the larger ‘contract terms’ sign on a fence outside the car park further down the road to the access and certainly not clearly visible and identifiable as you would turn into the car park or on the direction to walk to my wifes workplace across the road.
The defence seeks to claim no such signage was in place at the alleged date but wary of not being able to prove the google map streetview was not taken before the 11th of the month I have also pointed out the signage was deficient in any case.
The route we took was to ignore the claims letters presuming it was a scam and as such we have no details or what evidence was provided.
Unfortunately, we also ignored the Letter before claim and as a consequence cannot timeously issue an SAR to find out what details VCS have. Is it too late to issue an SAR once the defence has been issued and is there any point if they would have to disclose details before a hearing anyway?
It seems entirely conceivable that there was no authority provided by the building owner for VCS to issue a ticket and given the deception re signage I have indicated in the defence that VCS should provide date stamped evidence photographs and put the burden on them to prove they did not add the signage later, is this a plausible move?
The wording of the attached defence is derived from the ‘perfect defence’ thread from Coupon-Mad 14th Jul 19, 9:10 PM with elements derived from other similar defences.
Any comments would be gratefully received
Claim No. xxx
Claimant xxx
Defendant xxx
Defence
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant admits that on the date of the alleged infringement, the vehicle was parked in unenclosed car park directly accessible from adopted public highway at the front of an unoccupied business unit located in an industrial area.
3. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because there is no cause for action against the defendant. The Claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action.
4. The Particulars of Claim state the terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The Defendant denies that any such signage was in place at the time of the alleged breach of contract and has verifiable photographic evidence confirming the only signage clearly visible on approach to the entrance to the car park was the ‘to let’ signage confirming the unit was vacant.
5. The Defendant did not enter into any contract either express, implied, or by conduct with the Claimant as no contract terms were properly displayed and accessible to the driver, no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the Claimant signage at the location can create a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event and fails to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage does not meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms. The Defendant has verifiable photographic evidence of the inadequate signage after the material date and puts the Claimant to strict proof that this was even in place on or before the date of the alleged breach of contract and not placed afterwards as the Defendant believes.
6. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that no such signage capable of binding the driver existed at the time of the alleged breach nor was the site of commercial value being a vacant industrial unit not comparable with the retail park in the Beavis case cited
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. In failing to provide such a contract or other document constituting such an agreement the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
8. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.
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 a principal debt of £160 which as confirmed in the Letter before Claim includes a sum of £60.00 as a ‘debt collection charge’ which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing. DJ Grand stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”,
this was echoed by DJ Taylor.
10. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
11. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant in first bringing this vexatious claim without any justification in fact and the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
12. Data Protection Act breach. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Defendant avers that the signs used by this claimant are incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.
The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves their rights in respect of these matters.
13. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Name
Signed
Date
I think the defence covers the salient points and being aware of everyone’s valuable time I am posting to check opinion just re the specifics of this case and the use of google streetmaps evidence to defend the claim.
The circumstances were parking in the unenclosed car park of a vacant industrial unit adjacent to my wifes former workplace, which did not have sufficient spaces for the (local authority) workforce resulting in inevitable overspill on surrounding roads etc. After parking on three previous occasions when no signage was in place a ‘sting’ of parking tickets were issued to several cars with signage added afterwards by VCS.
Having checked the online historical google maps photos there is one from the month in question clearly confirming there was no signage visible. The date of the alleged breach of contract was the 11th of that month but we cannot ascertain the exact day of the google map streetview.
My wife has a record photo from the 13th of the month of VCS signage on an adjacent fence outside of the car park and not overtly in the line of sight on approach to the car park. A later google image a year on shows the full extent of signage which are three small signs on one bounding fence to the back of the car park/industrial unit and what appears to be the larger ‘contract terms’ sign on a fence outside the car park further down the road to the access and certainly not clearly visible and identifiable as you would turn into the car park or on the direction to walk to my wifes workplace across the road.
The defence seeks to claim no such signage was in place at the alleged date but wary of not being able to prove the google map streetview was not taken before the 11th of the month I have also pointed out the signage was deficient in any case.
The route we took was to ignore the claims letters presuming it was a scam and as such we have no details or what evidence was provided.
Unfortunately, we also ignored the Letter before claim and as a consequence cannot timeously issue an SAR to find out what details VCS have. Is it too late to issue an SAR once the defence has been issued and is there any point if they would have to disclose details before a hearing anyway?
It seems entirely conceivable that there was no authority provided by the building owner for VCS to issue a ticket and given the deception re signage I have indicated in the defence that VCS should provide date stamped evidence photographs and put the burden on them to prove they did not add the signage later, is this a plausible move?
The wording of the attached defence is derived from the ‘perfect defence’ thread from Coupon-Mad 14th Jul 19, 9:10 PM with elements derived from other similar defences.
Any comments would be gratefully received
Claim No. xxx
Claimant xxx
Defendant xxx
Defence
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The Defendant admits that on the date of the alleged infringement, the vehicle was parked in unenclosed car park directly accessible from adopted public highway at the front of an unoccupied business unit located in an industrial area.
3. It is denied that any 'parking charges’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety because there is no cause for action against the defendant. The Claimant has failed to show locus standi, the defendant does not believe they have a right to bring an action.
4. The Particulars of Claim state the terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The Defendant denies that any such signage was in place at the time of the alleged breach of contract and has verifiable photographic evidence confirming the only signage clearly visible on approach to the entrance to the car park was the ‘to let’ signage confirming the unit was vacant.
5. The Defendant did not enter into any contract either express, implied, or by conduct with the Claimant as no contract terms were properly displayed and accessible to the driver, no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the Claimant signage at the location can create a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event and fails to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage does not meet the mandatory test of transparency of terms that are 'bound to be seen', as set out within the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For a driver any terms relating to a parking contract would have had to have been extremely clear in all places within the site, in very large letters to ensure all drivers were 'bound to see' the terms. The Defendant has verifiable photographic evidence of the inadequate signage after the material date and puts the Claimant to strict proof that this was even in place on or before the date of the alleged breach of contract and not placed afterwards as the Defendant believes.
6. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. This case is distinguished from the Beavis case in that no such signage capable of binding the driver existed at the time of the alleged breach nor was the site of commercial value being a vacant industrial unit not comparable with the retail park in the Beavis case cited
7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. In failing to provide such a contract or other document constituting such an agreement the claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.
8. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.
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 a principal debt of £160 which as confirmed in the Letter before Claim includes a sum of £60.00 as a ‘debt collection charge’ which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing. DJ Grand stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”,
this was echoed by DJ Taylor.
10. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
11. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant in first bringing this vexatious claim without any justification in fact and the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
12. Data Protection Act breach. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Defendant avers that the signs used by this claimant are incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.
The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves their rights in respect of these matters.
13. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Name
Signed
Date
0
Comments
-
You are right with the target date for one of the claims, but what is the Issue Date for the second claim?
With a Claim Issue Date of 19th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you do indeed have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2019 to file your Defence.
Just a few days now.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
I'd delete the following:Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing. DJ Grand stated:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.”,
this was echoed by DJ Taylor.
10. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
11. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant in first bringing this vexatious claim without any justification in fact and the abuse of process in attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
12. Data Protection Act breach. For the reasons set out above, the parking charge which is the subject of these proceedings is invalid. The Defendant avers that the signs used by this claimant are incapable of binding the driver as the claimant failed to comply with International Parking Company Code of Practice ‘PART E Schedule 1 – Signage’.
The Claimant therefore had no right to request the keeper’s details from the DVLA and to use them and has breached the Defendant’s rights under the Data Protection Act by doing both. Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) is authority that misuse of personal data is a tort. Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 is authority that a reasonable sum of compensation would be £750. The Defendant reserves their rights in respect of these matters.
1. The other cases aren't a defence in themselves. You can talk a judge through it.
2.it comes perilously close to telling the DJ what to do, which isn't always appreciated.
3. If you allege a wrong, then counterclaim. Your anger of and by itself is neither a defence nor capable of a remedy
4. Let the judge find the defendant to have been lying before you weigh in with allegations of mendacity and a claim for unreasonable costs.
Finally, you don't need to know the date of the Google photos so long as you know they were that year and can say that they reflect the position at the time the vehicle was parked. That will be verified with your statement.0 -
I'd also considering filing and serving a list of questions under CPR part 18 (it is free, Google it)
If they allege the terms of signage were breached you' d probably want:
(I) a copy of the signs
(II) confirmation of the date that the signs were installed
(III) confirmation of the contract or authority under which the signs were installed, the permitted dates for the signs to be present and the terms of that signage
(IV) confirmation that the landowner or party contracting the PPC services has authorised the PPC to conduct litigation.
Those points go directly to the issues in dispute but can be dealt with after the defence. Get that done first.0 -
Unless I've missed it in my skim read of the opening post, unless a driver's identity has been offered to the PPC, why are they pursuing two different people for the same vehicle?
If the above hasn't been so identified, they should only by pursuing the registered keeper (whichever one of you that is).Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
Same vehicle, different incidences.
The PPC will no doubt have obtained RK details from DVLA for one, but not clear - unless the details provided to them - how both names are known.0 -
agreed , very strange
assuming Joe Soap was the RK of the vehicle and VCS obtained DVLA keeper details for Joe Soap using KADOE, then how do they come up with a claim to Joanne Soap who isnt on the DVLA database ?
the ignore methodology means that nobody told them (legally)0 -
Thankyou for your responses
KeithP -
issue date for the second claim is 25th June
Redx, Johnersh & Umkomaas - to clarify as to identity - the vehicle was registered in my wifes name - the initial defence for claim of the 19th June is parking in 2015 hence the PPC obtained her details, the second is, as other posts on the site,the Doncaster Airport mobile camera sting when stopping briefly, in this case on the access road to the Industrial estate whilst lost. This was two months after the first claim, i contacted them to deny liability at the time hence they have my details.
Johnersh - Thanks for the steer re suggested deletions - I will action accordingly - also the list of question under CPR 18 - should this be instead of an SAR or should I pursue that anyway?0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 25th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2019 to file your Defence.ThatJoeSoap wrote: »issue date for the second claim is 25th June.
That's just over a week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Keith
The really is no need to print and hand sign the defence statement to then re scan it. Sign on PDF or such like is perfectly accepted by the courts. Just saves a lot of faffing around.0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards