VCS County Court Claim - Hearing Stage: I Won!!!

Coupon-mad

In the SAR surely there is a postal PCN or NTK dated May or June?  They had to send one of those out first...where's that?

In the SAR record, they confirmed that the IDR process was first started on 5/7/22 at £60 charge. The first letter I received by them was a Demand for Payment posted on 11/7/22 (this was neither a NtK nor a PCN) asking for £170 and gave me no opportunity to appeal (see photos).

Their acronym IDR is the 'debt recovery' stage, after someone hasn't paid a PCN.

The £60 referred to in those Notes isn't talking about the initial parking charge.

It is referring to the old fake DRA add-on that used to be capped at £60 before the IPC bumped it up to £70 in Summer 2021.

Some would say that this convenient "let's make it £70 to match the BPA" increase was part of a cartel-like attempt to make the add-on of +£70 look like the 'industry standard' just before the Govt Consultation. Very clever, IPC!

Certainly it temporarily worked with some of the more credulous staff at the DLUHC because it was repeated in a webinar by a Civil Servant as if it was all fine and normal for PPC World. The Public Consultation at that time, also naively proposed to mirror it in the new Code. Total disaster.

Luckily, in the end, Ministers weren't taken in!

Anyway, the point is that in your case Notes, VCS firstly added the old £60 fake DRA fee then overrode it to try to grasp the higher fake DRA fee of +£70 instead. Hence the £170 demand.

Maybe their system still adds the old fake DRA fee cap of £60 and some greedy git has to log in to change it to +£70.

koahanee

Thank you @Coupon-mad - that makes sense to me now re. the IDR process. If they do take me to court I will make sure to point this out.

In the SAR surely there is a postal PCN of NTK dated May or June?  They had to send one of those out first...where's that?

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. I never received a NtK or a postal PCN and there is no record of it in their SAR notes!! Does this mean - VCS did not follow the POFA 2012 code in this case and therefore, unable to practice their rights to recover from the keeper i.e their contravening practice has invalidated this parking charge in the first place?

Coupon-mad

You could email their DPO back and say:

"ahem...you seem to have forgotten something.  You've omitted the image of a PCN or NTK. I take it you didn't bother, and just went straight for £170 demand?  Please confirm the first letter sent."

Or... keep quiet and hit them with that at defence stage, if and when the greedy ex-clampers try a small claim. It really is a game, beating the worst excesses of unregulated bullyboy parking firms.

Snakes_Belly

"The landowner has given me a letter (in writing and is signed my their residential management team) requesting cancellation of my parking ticket issued by VCS".

"Elms Legal got back to me and said there is no cancellation clause for the site so the parking ticket cannot be cancelled. Just wanted to check if this is even legally accurate or are they trying to bully me into paying?"

"The arrangement we (as the residents) have with VCS for patrolling our parking space is that we pay them a minimal parking signage fee & whatever monies they get from the tickets would be their profits so I would think the landlord/residents supersede VCS here"

I have seen contracts between landowner and Excel (same director) where the landowner was allowed to cancel so many PCN's per month. I would not believe what Elms have said until you see the actual contract when they send their WS.
Would Elms have seen the landowner contract at this stage?

I would not be surprised if they fold before this gets to court.   

koahanee

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @Snakes_Belly 👍🏻

I might play my cards close to my chest for the time being and use the omission of NTK/PCN at defence stage if this gets there. It’s just so wrong how a company like VCS is allowed to operate through the loop hole of the system. I am actually prepared to go to court with them just so I can expose them in court 😂

So my plan for now is replying back to Elms as below:

I would like to request the contract between VCS and XXX site management, where the details of the aforementioned no cancellation from the landowner at XXX site was specified.

I am making this request under section 5.2 of the PAP, as stated below. I hope to receive your reply in due course.

5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must – 

(a) provide the document or information; or 

(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of the request.

Please can I take this opportunity to express my willingness to resolve this dispute between two parties. However, should this fail I would await a court claim from yourself/VCS to settle this matter in court. I am seeking legal/debt advice and I would like to specify that under section 4.2 of the PAP ‘the creditor should not start court proceedings less than 30 days from the creditor providing any documents requested by the debtor, whichever is the later’.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

What do you think to this? 

KeithP

koahanee said:

What do you think to this? 

Looks good to me, but the words 'whichever is the later' make no sense there and should be removed.

koahanee

Oooopsss my bad on Copy and Paste 😆 Thank you @KeithP 👍🏻

Snakes_Belly

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

The above case is an old case 2012 before Beavis so there is quite a bit of preamble that is irrelevant. 

The basis is of the claim was that Mrs Ibbotson was the keeper and her husband the driver. Mr Ibbotson parked at Wickes and left the site and then returned to the store. The PCN was issued on the basis of "leaving the site" which was a breach of the terms and conditions of the contract.

There is much discussion about the breach of contract however at page 10 the hearing turns to the contract between Wickes and VCS (owned by the same director as Excel). It is the lack of authority to pursue through the courts that the claim is dismissed.

I not legally trained and I am unsure without seeing the contract between the management company and Excel whether this case is relevant and could be cited in your defence. 

If I was Excel I would not bring their claim against you to court as the outcome looks very uncertain.

The whole point of introducing a PPC was to stop unauthorised parking not to penalise the drivers who had the right to park.

patient_dream

"Elms Legal got back to me and said there is no cancellation clause for the site so the parking ticket cannot be cancelled" 

Is this just rubbish, just because there is no cancellation clause.does not remotely mean it cannot be cancelled.    It's the same old story .. "The organ Grinder and the Monkey"

Clearly the landowner is the Organ Grinder

As a request to cancel has been declined, a judge may well look upon Elms/VCS as WASTING the courts time and award costs to the defendent

I am sure ELMS will not want another court spanking

Snakes_Belly

"As a request to cancel has been declined, a judge may well look upon Elms/VCS as WASTING the courts time and award costs to the defendent

I am sure ELMS will not want another court spanking"

In the Ibbotson case I think that VCS were in contempt of court.

Excel and VCS don't choose their battles very well.