VCS Missing Reg PCN, IAS Appeal and Court Claim

blueskyrich

Hi all,

Reading the Newbies thread (thank you to all who contribute to that!), I note the lack of trust and belief in the IAS.

Unfortunately, my reading came a little too late as I have already filed an appeal with the IAS following a lovely back and forth with VCS.  Entered the make of the vehicle in the app where my registration should have been after a rather stressy 15 minutes trying to get the app to work!

Is there any material disadvantage in using the IAS appeal other than the demotivation when they come back and tell me tough?  I'm not bothered by that, I'm more than happy to go all the way to court to defend myself - at a basic level, I paid for something in good faith!  

I can't see anything that will hinder my defence or am I missing something obvious?

Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

It won't hinder your defence.

We have to warn people against trying it because many here are easily upset by 'losing' a kangaroo court appeal and we do NOT want people feeling they have no case.

Most people dealing with meritless 'charges' from some random ex-wheelclamper aren't as robust as us and you!  So the standard advice is there to stop people being duped into paying.

The £170 threatograms will come next.  LOL!  Red writing and threats to kill your cat or whatever...

And while your case is being 'spat out' by the IAS farce, we sincerely hope that you are au fait with the need to respond to the private parking draft Impact Assessment by mid-September?

The Government has a Call for Evidence open right now.

We are wanting photos of unmanaged car parks, Hospital car park signs near you that show £50 or £60 as the deterrent, and Aldi, Asda, Tesco or Sainsburys £70 signs please.

All discussed here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6463361/dluhc-private-parking-code-government-launches-call-for-evidence-discussion-thread/p6

We need photo evidence of low or no deterrent car parks near you, please!

Thankyou!

blueskyrich

Thank you, that's marvellous!

I'm more than happy to go to court - despite the fact that dealing with all this is massive pain the backside, there is part of me that would like to take this to court as it is so ridiculous.  Its almost laughable that a company would offer a product, take the money for that product, provide the product yet then go to court and have the front to tell a judge that they are somehow disadvantaged for someone paying and using the service they've offered!

I find it utterly amazing we live in a society where you can pay for something in good faith, make a trivial/non-consequential error for which you gain absolutely no advantage and yet there is a mechanism where some very unscrupulous and unaccountable companies can bully people into paying a disproportionate fine for non-adherence to overly ridiculous and punitive terms and conditions.   It just isn't right or decent.

What also tickles me is that I paid for something but didn't meet their terms 100%.  Normally, if that happens elsewhere, you'd get a refund and that would be that.  Instead, they take and keep my money.  I'd call that an acceptance of the transaction!

Once I get the big eff you from IAS, I'll follow the advice on the sticky posts and offer any relevant experience I encounter.  

 

blueskyrich

Just had the prima facie response from VCS on this one - they really are lovely people aren't they?

I'm sure their parents are so proud of the positive impact they have made on society!

Got nothing further to add really and I already can guess the IAS response.  Could just click the 'arbitration' (!) button however....

I do however want to cause VCS some extra work.  Any suggestions for a response that, without prejudice, would cause VCS to have to do some running around and really earn their 'independent' appeal victory?

I mean, I could just call them the thieving, manipulative, fearmongering scumbags that they are but I'm a good boy....

All sensible options considered!

Coupon-mad

Depends what they've said but you could use the DLUHC's Code of Practice and draft Impact Assessment against them and say you are only going through the motions as evidence of what you consider to be a scam operation, for your own response to the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment and Call for Evidence.  You are aware that the IAS has been denounced by all MPs who spoke about it, as a kangaroo court and Bryn Holloway should be ashamed of the IAS' woeful 'record' of rejecting 95% of appeals which is a scandal.  You are aware that the DLUHC has declared this crisis year a 'market failure' by the parking industry and you are collecting evidence of rogue practice and how broken the IAS is, so thankyou VCS for this one.  

blueskyrich

Thanks Coupon - that's a smashing idea. They came back with the usual legal response about entering into a contract, the charge notice is for the contract breach, the app isn't theirs, there is a helpline if I had trouble - you know, the usual crap!

Nice to say my piece and also get them to waste a bit more time just like they are wasting mine!

B789

If you believe that they have obtained your personal details without cause, you could do the following:

Article 12 of the UK GDPR legally requires data controllers to store and process personal data accurately: clearly, any data controller issuing an invoice to you because it has wrongly recorded that you parked in breach of the alleged contract between you and the landowner is processing your personal data unlawfully. 

The precedents for claiming damages and compensation for such unlawful processing are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Zeta Jones & Douglas v Hello! Magazine [2003] EWHC 786 and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (CCF) [2013] EWCA Civ 333, both being binding on all County Courts in England and Wales.  In the latter claim, Mr Halliday was awarded compensation of £750 at what the Court regarded was the lowest level of award, and although this was a claim under Section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, similar provisions - amended to take account of a decision by the EU Grand Chamber that the 1998 Act did not properly implement EU law into UK domestic legislation - replaced the old Section 13 provisions with Article 12 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

In short, you ought to give 21 days notice (the pre-action protocol only really requires 14 days but hey, you can be charitable!) to the data controller of your intention to seek (say) £100 nominal damages and compensation under Article 84 of the UK GDPR and Section 168 of the Data Protection Act 2018 for their unlawful processing of your personal data: you could say that you will not file your claim with the County Court if they confirm in writing that all references to this alleged debt have been deleted within (say) 14 days. Clearly mark your letter as a "Letter before County Court proceedings".

Anyone who is fairly confident can claim as a litigant-in-person in Part 27 proceedings in the County Court (commonly but wrongly described as "the Small Claims Court").  Each party is responsible for their own legal costs whether they win or lose and the claim for £100 can be issued online for a fee of £35 at moneyclaimonline.gov.uk which also gives useful advice if you want to have a look at what is involved.  Your claim will automatically be listed as being for a total of £135, i.e. the successful party gets their Court fees back.

Coupon-mad

Please use my wording.  VCS deserve this.

blueskyrich

!!!!!!, I missed the edit on your response coupon before I pressed the send button.

This is what has gone to them....

You will probably be aware of the Government's DLUHC Code of Practice that was published in 2022 and the subsequent draft Impact Assessment from July concerning poor behaviour within your industry.

I'm going through this process so, should it be required, I can demonstrate in court that I made every appeal available to me. It is also important for me to go through these motions in order to further collect information as part of a submission to the Call for evidence that has followed the aforementioned impact assessment where I will be naming VCS Ltd as an operator that is clearly demonstrating unsavoury practice as a key element of their business model.

For the record, I am more than happy for this matter to end up in a court of law. You are a scam operation which preys upon the weaker and more vulnerable in society. I am not one of those people. If this appeal sides in your favour, all further correspondence on this matter will be ignored until you either retract your ridiculous claim for payment or until resolution in court is required.

Coupon-mad

Very good! That'll put a bat up their nightdress!

B789

Coupon-mad said:

Very good! That'll put a bat up their nightdress!

  That's a new one for me. Are you talking mammal or cricket?