Fluttering ticket parking fine

ParkingScum

Thats great thank you. I’ll have a read. If a response will get me out of court I’ll try it. I can’t really be bothered with court as its time consuming but am willing to go if I have to. I just don’t want to waste too much time on the LBA if it will just get ignored by VCS.

ParkingScum

Please see below my response to the LBC. I could put more but it will end up turning into a full on defence if I put everything down.

Dear VCS               Claim number:

With reference to your Letter before Claim dated xx/xx/xx the debt you are claiming is fully disputed as previously stated to yourselves in writing and via the IAS appeal system.

In addition to the above, I require a breakdown of the ‘Principal Balance’ Costs’ as set out in the Statement of Account section within the Letter before Claim, as it is unclear how such costs have been accrued and calculated. This is an attempt at ‘double recovery’ and shows a blatant disregard for the process by using the threat of a County Court Judgement to extort a greater sum than the original parking charge. An ‘abuse of the process’ is not tolerated by the courts. You know this. This will be brought to the attention of the judge.

Regarding your £35 court fees; these costs must be absorbed by the claimant and cannot be added to the balance claimed. You know this. 

Any debt recovery costs to yourselves which are negligible due to your automated letter systems are covered by the original £100 PCN. 8% interest (if any) can only be claimed against the original £100 PCN. Again, you know this.

On the subject of the PCN, you have still refused to provide me with an itemisation of the costs amounting to the original £100 claimed - failing to show that this charge represents a genuine pre estimate of loss. ‘A0JD1405 ParkingEye v Cargius 25 November 2014 it was held that the Beavis Case did not apply since the car park generated substantial revenue and therefore it was not necessary to charge large amounts for transgressions to make management commercially viable. The charge of £100 far exceeded the cost of the overstay and subsequent costs and was deemed a penalty.’ This will be bought to the attention of the judge.

Your attempts to intimidate and unnerve me by the addition of these fake costs have proved futile. Should you take me to court and be successful in your claim, the most I will pay is the original £100. With this in mind why would I even consider settling out of court with yourselves at a cost nearing double that of the original fine?

On the subject of court action it should also be noted that I am seeking assistance from 3rd parties who have recently won cases against private parking firms involving ‘fluttering tickets’. In this regard, I will utilise their experience and advice in defending this unwarranted demand for money.

Regards,

Xxxxxxxx

 

Le_Kirk

Remove the greengrocer's apostrophe on Costs!  I think you will find that filing fee and hearing fee are allowed. GPEOL Genuine pre estimate of loss is no longer used.

Coupon-mad

And remove this phrase:

"to yourselves in writing and via the IAS appeal system".

Don't even mention the IAS.  It's not considered (by MPs or clued-up consumers) a valid appeal system.  Not worthy of a mention, IMHO.

I think you've read some really old examples of robust LBC response threads.  When you do a search on this forum always change BEST MATCH to 'NEWEST'.

ParkingScum

To be honest I’ve not really read any. Just loads of cases from through the years on numerous websites. Its a shame about genuine pre estimate of costs. I thought if you could differentiate your case from Beavis you had a shot at it? I guess I’m flooding myself with too many old cases. I’ll look at the point you both have raised thank you. And have a look at the threads as you’ve said.

ParkingScum

*meant ‘points’ you’ve raised

Umkomaas

Regarding your £35 court fees; these costs must be absorbed by the claimant and cannot be added to the balance claimed. You know this. 

They can legitimately claim this cost from you should they win at court. 

ParkingScum

I’ve re-written my response to the letter before claim as seen below. This is pretty much my entire defence. Its not been proof read yet but if anyone has any other ideas I’m all ears. It has to go in the post early next week to get to them in time for their 30 day deadline. Thanks in advance for your time.

Dear VCS,

I write with reference to your Letter before Claim dated xxxxxxxx relating to the alleged liability of the sum of £170.

The debt you are harassing me for is whole heartedly disputed and will be rigorously defended against in court. 

On the subject of court action it should also be noted that I am seeking assistance from 3rd parties who have recently won cases against private parking firms. In this regard, I will utilise their experience and advice in defending this unwarranted, unrelenting demand for money.

In relation to the above, I require a breakdown of the ‘Principal Balance’ Costs as set out in the Statement of Account section within the Letter before Claim, as it is unclear how such costs have been accrued and calculated. This is an attempt at ‘double recovery’ and shows a blatant disregard for the process by using the threat of a County Court Judgement to extort a greater sum than the original parking charge. An ‘abuse of the process’ such as this is not tolerated by the courts (Excel vs Wilkinson G4QZ465V). This will be brought to the attention of the judge.

Any debt recovery costs to yourselves which are negligible due to your automated letter systems are covered by the original £100 PCN. 8% interest (if any) can only be claimed against the original £100 PCN.

Your attempts to intimidate and unnerve me by the addition of these fake costs in order to coerce me into settling out of court have proved futile.

Your grievance against me is based purely on consumer contract law where you state I failed to comply with the contractual terms and conditions. I direct you to Section 62(4) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 where it states: ‘A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.’ Your contract requires me to be responsible for my vehicle and the ticket in the windscreen the entire time I am parked. The definition of a car park states: ‘an area or building where cars or other vehicles may be left temporarily’. To hold me accountable for unforeseen events whist not at the vehicle and unable to intervene puts me as a consumer not only at a significant disadvantage within this unfair contract but also able to claim ‘frustration of contract’ where an event not reasonably foreseen and outside the control of the defendant has taken place. In relation to the above Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Part 1, Term 6 states: ‘A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’ - your PCN. Your contract contains unfair terms and is therefore non binding to me as a consumer as is the said PCN. You have also previously stated that ‘it is the responsibility of the motorist to fully comply with the contractual terms and conditions of parking displayed.’ The identity of the driver has yet to be clarified so I kindly request the information upon which this statement - an attempt to obligate me to your terms and conditions is based. Furthermore you state that as the registered keeper of the vehicle ‘it was the appellants responsibility to correctly display their ticket as per the terms and conditions’. However, adherence to such terms and conditions can surely only be expected of the individual who was actually driving the vehicle at the said time the alleged offence took place as opposed to one who is merely registered as its keeper?

You state in your case that ‘signs were clearly visible from the car’ yet you show no evidence of this. Car parking signs were damaged and either posted extremely low or high as seen in your own pictures. No signage at all was visible from the ticket machine; the point at which the contractual agreement between VCS and the consumer is formed. Lettering on signs that were visible neither from the car nor the ticket machine were of mixed font and sizing making them extremely difficult to read; important contractual information being especially small and illegible without kneeling on the floor or obtaining a ladder. 

You threaten me with court action yet you still fail to provide me with any evidence that you have authority/jurisdiction to issue tickets/fines at the said car park. This parking agreement must be supplied for viewing if this case reaches court where careful scrutiny will take place checking names, dates and addresses between VCS and the landowner; of whom I have identified via a Land Registry Search and corresponded with.

With reference to the facts stated above this case should be halted immediately and your relentless pursuit of this inaccurate charge be ceased. You hound me for a debt yet you provide only substandard evidence I am beholden to pay it. You have supplied no evidence your signage was visible from the car or ticket machine or up to a standard a consumer should expect, no evidence of authority to issue tickets or fines in that car park, no evidence I have broken a contractual agreement with yourselves and no evidence of how your inflated costs have been accrued. As mentioned previously I am seeking assistance from 3rd parties who have recently won cases against private parking firms and I am more than prepared to meet you in court to defend myself against what I see as oppressive intimidation over a false charge on land that is evidently not relevant under POFA2012. Please call an end to this.

Regards,

Xxxxxxxxxxx

1505grandad

Where did the parking event take place?

BTW no middle "e" in Judgment in this context.

Coupon-mad

That's too long as a robust LBC response.  Unfocussed and misses out the Government's draft Impact Assessment (expected this month) which is what you should be throwing at them.

Your search for 'newest' examples seems to have missed this one from last week:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80127909#Comment_80127909

VCS will HATE to receive that.

Dob't say you are getting help from 3rd parties.   You need the magic words to get a 30 day hold.