Vehicle Control Services / Peel

outwestuk

ignavia said:

Did you complain to the landowner? They can cancel PCNs right up to the hearing. It is never too late.

Well my MP wrote to peel and I have complained but neither recieved a response

Snakes_Belly

I don't get the rationale of decreasing the maximum stay during lockdown when people were having to queue to enter shops. But there again this is Excel and VCS.

There were instances on this forum of people who had gone over the maximum stay in supermarkets as a result of queuing to enter the supermarket and queuing again at the tills. Marks and Spencer did cancel a ticket in these circumstances. 

ignavia

outwestuk said:

Well my MP wrote to peel and I have complained but neither recieved a response

We had no response from 2 people at Peel, but the third finally, after 28 days, confirmed cancellation. 4 days before their WS was due.

outwestuk

ignavia said:

outwestuk said:

Well my MP wrote to peel and I have complained but neither recieved a response

We had no response from 2 people at Peel, but the third finally, after 28 days, confirmed cancellation. 4 days before their WS was due.

Great thank you - who did you contact?

ignavia

outwestuk said:

who did you contact?

PM'd you the contact details.

outwestuk

I am contesting a claim from Vehicle Control Services for overstaying at Gloucester Retail Park. I am challenging this on the basis that I was the keeper but not the driver, that during lockdown they changed the 3 hours to 2 (sticking a 2 label over the 3 on the sign) and putting very temporary signs up only during the first lockdown. I am also challenging the extra charges as advised on this board.

I am posting their WS for interst of others but also to seek feedback.  Particularly

1. They refer in paragraph 10 to the "law of Agency" to show that I am liable.

2. In paragraph 24 they highlight why their debt recover charge is valid.

3. Section 29 refers to a "Part 18 request" - what is this?

4. Section 27 states that my defence was too long (although submitted by email)

Any input gratefully received.

 

 

1.      I am employed by Vehicle Control Services Limited as a Paralegal and have been employed since January 2019. The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief

2. The Claimant is engaged in providing and managing private parking facilities nationwide.

3. At all material times, the Claimant has been an Accredited Member of Approved Trade Associations certified by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and has been awarded Approved Operator Status through its full compliance with their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement on Private Land and Unregulated Car Parks. This code of practice gives recommendations in regards to the signage within the Car Parks and the Claimant follow these recommendations.

4. The Claimant provides, manages and enforces private parking at the Car Park known as Peel Centre (Gloucester Retail Park) Car Park situated in Gloucester, GLI 5SF.

5. At all material times, the Defendant was the Hirer of the vehicle registered XXXXXX.

6. In response to the Defendant's Defence, on the xxxxxxxx the said vehicle was detected by the ANPR camera to have been parked/remained in Peel Centre (Gloucester Retail Park) Car Park in Gloucester for longer than the maximum period permitted. The enclosed contravention images show that the vehicle entered the Car Park at 15:48 and exited the same at 18:33, remaining in the Car Park for a duration of 2 hours and 45 minutes on the date of the contravention when the maximum period permitted was 2 hours. This rendered the Driver in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park and the Defendant liable for the Parking Charge advertised on the signage.

7. The Claimant submits that the onus was on the Defendant, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and to whom the Parking Charge Notice was served, to advise the Claimant whether he was the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention and if he was not, then to carry out his investigations with any individuals who have access to the vehicle and establish who the Driver at the time was and furnish the Claimant with the name and address of the Driver.

8. By failing to take appropriate action, the Defendant has failed to discharge himself from liability of the Parking Charge which is why he should be held liable to pay the Charge as the Liable Party.

9. It would now be too late for the Defendant to come forward with Driver details, as a Claim has been issued against his name.

10. Alternatively, the Claimant could rely on the Law of Agency and contend that the Defendant had allowed permission for another individual to drive the vehicle hired in his name. Therefore, the Claimant submits that where someone else, besides the Defendant, is driving the vehicle, they are acting as an agent of the Defendant. This means the Driver has actual and/or implied authority to enter into a Contract on behalf of the Defendant.

 

11. The Law of Agency deals with contractual relationships that involve a person, called the Agent, that is authorised to act on behalf of another, called the Principal, to create legal relations with a third party.

12. The Claimant wishes to rely on the case ofExcel Parking Services Ltd v Nick Jenning [2017] as a persuasive authority. In this case, the Defendant had been served with 9 Parking Charge Notices, each one occurring on a separate occasion. The Defendant in his defence was unable to make a concession that he was, he could have been on some or all of the occasions the Driver over an 8 months' period when the contraventions had occurred. District Judge Dignan concluded that the Defendant was more likely than not the driver which satisfied the 51 % needed in civil cases. Secondly, he concluded that even if the Defendant was not the Driver, the Defendant was liable for the Parking Charge under the Law of Agency.

 

13. Paragraph 4(6) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 states that: Nothing in this paragraph affects any other remedy the creditor may have against the keeper of the vehicle or any other person in respect of any unpaid parking charges (but this is not to be read as permitting double recovery).

 

14. The Terms and Conditions printed on the signage (copy enclosed) erected in the Car Park specifically state, amongst other things, the following: 'Maximum Stay 2 Hours Parking' as it is private land, otherwise a Parking Charge of £100.00 will be issued.

15. The Claimant respectfully refers to the signage in the enclosed Site photographs which confirms that the Car Park has been a 2 hour maximum stay Car Park since March 2020. The Claimant submits that it was the Driver's responsibility to familiarise themselves with the Terms and Conditions and ensure that they complied with the same.

16. The Claimant submits that the predominant purpose of the Parking Charge is to deter motorists, such as the Driver, from misusing the Car Park and that the occupier's objective include the following:

1. The need to provide parking spaces for customers;

2. The related need to prevent misuse of the parking for purposes unconnected with the customers' business; and

3. The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable the Claimant to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services, without which those services would not be available.

17. There are numerous warning signs prominently displayed and visible within the Car Park to alert motorists that this is private land and parking is subject to Terms and Conditions. Furthermore, the area is sufficiently lit, the signage is reflective and the Terms and Conditions on the signage are printed in a large font size, in bold and are legible. Thus, it cannot be a valid defence for any motorist to say "I did not see and read the signage" in an attempt to absolve liability and expect the Court to uphold this.

18. In any event, the Claimant submits that their signage is compliant with the IPC Code of Practice. The Claimant's signage is also audited and approved by the International Parking Community, and is therefore fully capable of creating a legally binding Contract with motorists entering the Car Park.

19. Reliance is placed upon the decision in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 whereby the Defendant was given a contractual licence to park the vehicle in the development on the terms of the notice posted on various warning signs throughout the site, which he accepted by entering the car park. In relation to the Defendant, the terms were that the Driver could only park the vehicle within the maximum period permitted and that on breach of this term, £100.00 would be payable, which would be reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days. The £100.00 is the consideration.

20. The Claimant respectfully refers to the enclosed Contract Witness Statement which demonstrates their authority to issue Parking Charges to those vehicles found/seen in a manner in breach of the Terms and Conditions and to recover any unpaid Charges in their own name through debt recovery/Court action.

21. The Claimant submits that as at 29 September 2014, they were a member of the accredited trade association of the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) to which reference was made on the Notices and to which the Claimant still belongs. The IPC code of practice is a detailed code of regulation governing signs, charges and enforcement. Schedule 5 deals with Parking Charges and provides that "it is suggested the maximum parking charge should be £ 100. 00".

22. The Claimant submits that £100.00 for a Parking Charge is not an extortionate sum at all, but in line with the recommendation provided by the IPC.

23. The £60.00 is for the debt recovery charge. The Claimant refers to the IPC Code of Practice Part E Schedule 5- Parking Charges which states the following:

'Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added This sum must not exceed £60 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated '

24. The Claimant submits that the debt recovery charge included within the Claim does not exceed £60. 00 and therefore is in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice. The £25. 00 is the Court fee.

25. The Claimant relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2016] AC 1172 and submits that they do not need to suffer a financial loss. Lord Neuberger at paragraph 99 stated that:

"The reason is that although ParkingEye was not liable to suffer loss as a result of overstaying motorists, it had a legitimate interest in charging them which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The scheme in operation here (and in many similar car parks) is that the landowner authorises ParkingEye to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the retail outlets, their customers and the public at large".

26. The Claimant submits that the Particulars of Claim endorsed within the Claim Form provided the Defendant with sufficient details of the Claim to be able to prepare a full Defence to the Claim made against him.

27. As the Claim was issued online using Money Claim Online (MCOL), under Paragraph 4 (1) PD 7E- MCOL, the Claimant's Claim meets the conditions for starting a Claim using MCOL. Under Paragraphs 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's Particulars of Claim were included in the online Claim Form, however, they had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its Particulars.

28. The Claimant relies on Paragraph 5.2A PD 7E which states: 'The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the Particulars of Claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5 .2 of this practice direction'.

29. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant submits that the Defendant could have made a Part 18 request for Further Information if he genuinely considered the Particulars to be insufficient. However, it would appear from the Defendant's Defence that this was not utilised by the Defendant.

30. In any event, the Claimant submits that prior to the matter having been allocated to the Small Claims Track for a Hearing, the statements of case had been considered by the Judge, who was satisfied with the same and allocated it to the Small Claims Track. As such, the Particulars of Claim are adequate and compliant with the CPR

31. The Claimant can confirm that the Claim is for breach of Contract, which 1s noted in the Particulars of Claim.

32. The Claimant denies that their conduct in pursuing the Defendant constitutes harassment. The Claimant notes that under the PHA 1997 it outlines;

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and (b) which he knows or ought to have known amounts to harassment of the other Section I of the FHA also states subsection I does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows- (a) that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (b) that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.

33. The Claimant contends that a continued pursuit of a prima facie debt cannot amount to harassment, nor can it constitute harassing behaviour in circumstances where we clearly have grounds for recourse to legal action. The said vehicle was identified parked on private land in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions.

D_P_Dance

IMO, reducing the time during covid falls to be considered under the unfair terms and conditions provisions of the Consumer Rights Act.

https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/tradingstandards/consumeradvice/goodsandservices/unfairtermsconsumer

Umkomaas

Excel Parking Services Ltd v Nick Jenning [2017] 

Put that into Google and you can read how to discredit it (I'm presuming it's a private rather than a works vehicle involved). 

Have you received a copy of the landowner contract?  If so, please let us see that - do not redact anything in it (recognising that VCS will have already been at it with the black felt tip!). 

KeithP

Is this related to your other VCS Peel Centre thread?

Coupon-mad

Not sure it is, if this one is Gloucester Retail Park?

Anyway at 7 they've said you as the 'registered keeper' (which they know you are not) are required to name the driver.  In fact POFA says no such thing and nor are hirer consumer individuals responsible for the use of a car under the law of agency. 

And VCS didn't transfer liability properly to you as hirer under para 13 & 14 of the POFA because they didn't send a compliant NTH with the specified attachments.  So as a matter of fact and law, you are not liable as a result of a defective Notice to Hirer.

What are the signs like there, show us the signage pictures and the landowner authority they've provided.