VCS - Southend Airport No Stopping - RK - Not Driver - Costs Awarded - Another One Bites the Dust

stop_this_nonsense

Hi 'PCN' experts :-)

Have been a long term admirer of your sterling efforts to stop these scammers but haven't been properly in their headlights ... until now!

Quick potted history (can give details if needed):

• Received a "Final Reminder" / "Charge Notice" (not a Parking Charge Notice) for "stopping ... where stopping is prohibited" at an airport where VCS operate one of their traps. Never received the initial notice.
• I appealed using their on-line portal with the stock forum responses but it was rejected (quelle surprise!). 
• I didn't bother with the IAS appeal route (thanks to the forum for saving me the time needlessly prostrating myself before skippy the kangaroo!).
• Received x2 final demands (which I took x2 pleasure in ignoring!).
• Have now received a "Letter Before Claim" from VCS Litigation Department, along with all the threatening nonsense about CCJs and requesting me to fill out their forms (no chance!).

I think this about the right time for a new "VCS - no stopping at an airport" thread to spin up.

Is this a 'proper' LBC? Any guidance on best way to respond?

Coupon-mad

Yes.

You could send a response like this one which worked this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80335688#Comment_80335688

Fruitcake

If the LBC gives you 30 days to respond, then it is genuine. 

Which airport?

There are several No-stopping at *insert name of scamport here* threads on the forum. 

What were the circumstances surrounding the issue of the charge? VCS have issued several PCNs and claims where the motorist's vehicle was photographed outside the area where they are contracted to operate, and a recent one where a driver had to stop because of a broken down bus.

Plan A is always a complaint to the landowner and your MP.

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the second post of the NEWBIES, and the template defence thread that includes a twelve step guide.

If you want more time, send the standard, Whilst I deny the debt, I am seeking debt advice and require the case put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol instruction near the end of the 30 day deadline from the date of issue of the LBC.

stop_this_nonsense

Wow. That was quick!

I like that thread. I am liking the Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd case, which I hadn't come across before. I think I can use this word-for-word. 

Thanks.

stop_this_nonsense

Thanks @Coupon-mad and @Fruitcake.

It was Southend Airport (sorry, should have put it in the thread title).

I intend to approach my local MP, the airport, DVLA and the ICO in due course, but the tempo of notice, appeal, demand etc from VCS means I want to prioritise kicking them into touch. 

OK ... here we go. Robust LBC Response:

Ref: Charge Notice [...]

I am seeking debt advice, but I deny any debt and the case must be put “on hold” for not less than 30 days, as per the provisions of paragraph 4 of Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 (“PAP”).

I confirm my address (“address for service”) as:

[...]

I dispute the above charge notice, reference [...] (“the charge notice”). I am the Record Keeper of the above referenced vehicle. I was not the driver.

In your rejection letter to my online appeal dated [...] (“the rejection letter”) you clearly state that “In your appeal you state you were not the driver …” and acknowledge that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) is not being relied on by VCS to transfer liability to the keeper. VCS further states that “… we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver … on the date in question …”.

Your statement that I was not the driver, coupled with the acknowledged non-POFA position, clearly undermines any liability / liabilities that VCS alleges to exist against me.

VCS reveals its obvious desperation to fabricate a debt liability by relying on a “reasonable assumption”. What nonsense.

My experience is that VCS adopts an aggressive and threatening posture in its communication. The misinformation, stonewalling and scare tactics in the notices, rejection letters, IAS appeal “kangaroo court”, demands, final demands and even the Letter Before Claim, are all intended to frighten me into paying despite there being no clear liability and are clearly harassing.

Given the above points, I assert that the legitimate interest basis on which you rely on to continue to process my personal data is no longer valid and I object to further processing. Your obvious lack of a valid basis for a claim means that your continued processing of my data is at odds with my interests, rights and freedoms. VCS is in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 (“the DPA”) in this respect.

If you persist in continuing to process and / or share my personal data with any other entities, affiliates, (so-called) debt recovery companies, or any other agents, and in the event of VCS filing a court claim, note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500. This will be claimed as damages for distress arising from flagrant breaches of the Data Protection Act 2018 and / or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

I have no obligation to identify the driver. I will not volunteer this information. 

Cancel the Charge Notice. Erase my data. Confirm compliance in writing to the address for service.

Coupon-mad

Add in VCS v Edward (YOU WILL LOVE THAT TRANSCRIPT*!) and you are done.

* search the forum and change to NEWEST.

KeithP

stop_this_nonsense said:

I am the Record Keeper of the above referenced vehicle. 

Do you mean Registered Keeper?

stop_this_nonsense said:

Your statement that I was not the driver, coupled with the acknowledged non-POFA position, clearly undermines any liability / liabilities that VCS alleges to exist against me.

I don't understand this. Their statement that you were not the driver??

I also think you are going a bit over the top with almost all your words following that.

Fruitcake

I agree with KeithP. What you say about the identity of the driver does not make sense. It actually reads as if VCS have said you weren't the driver but you have admitted in your proposed response that you were.
I also agree that the rest is just a rant and does no good whatsoever.

If you were not the driver, then say so and state that since the airport is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the PoFA since byelaws apply, you cannot be held liable as registered keeper.

If you were driving, don't admit or deny it, but refer to the byelaws (quote the relevant part) that permits stopping in certain circumstances. If the driver stopped, for example because they or a passenger was ill, or they were obeying road signs, or the vehicle broke down or was held up by another vehicle/object/reason outside the driver's control, then state that.

Coupon-mad

Just use the VCS v Edward and Excel v Smith words instead.  No link!  Search the forum...

stop_this_nonsense

Thanks for the feedback @Coupon-mad. Will hunt down those cases and include.

Thanks also to you @Fruitcake .. yup, you are right. My bad. Should be Registered Keeper! Will update.

@KeithP (thanks also) and @Fruitcake: granted that the bit about driver identity is an odd one. I should point out that, in their rejection letter, VCS misquoted me, i.e. that stated that I had stated I was not the driver, which is not a statement that I made. Maybe it is not material enough to include; I guess the point I wanted to make was that they are behaving unreasonably.

I don't think that there is any harm in being honest with them that I am not the driver. Maybe they will think I am lying and take me to court anyway. It is neither here nor there in that case. 

I also grant you that the letter is a bit 'ranty'. Thanks for pulling me up on it. I will admit that writing it was cathartic! I'll dial it down (e.g. maybe I'll save the DPA point for a separate request to their DPO).

Not sure if it was clear, but this is a Charge Notice, not a Penalty Charge Notice. There was no unpaid parking. It is a 'fine' for stopping (apologies if I have unnecessarily pointed this out).

I do have a question though for you experts about a POFA point I am not clear on. VCS have not sought to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA to transfer liability (and they don't mention it in the Charge Notice). So, is the point about relevant land still needed, i.e. does POFA apply to all 'PCN's even if the PPC can't (or chooses not to!) rely on Sch. 4? This is a point that is not entirely clear to me.

Umkomaas

I do have a question though for you experts about a POFA point I am not clear on. VCS have not sought to rely on Schedule 4 of POFA to transfer liability (and they don't mention it in the Charge Notice). So, is the point about relevant land still needed, i.e. does POFA apply to all 'PCN's even if the PPC can't (or chooses not to!) rely on Sch. 4? This is a point that is not entirely clear to me.

At an airport, VCS cannot rely on PoFA on airport land covered by byelaws and deemed 'not relevant land' as in Schedule 4 of PoFA.  Any PPC that wishes to use PoFA for 'relevant land' to pass liability to the registered keeper, absent knowing who the driver was, must use specific wording and meet the time limits of PoFA. If they don't, keeper liability cannot be transferred from the driver.