VCS - PCN in visitor spot. They hadn't sent us new permits.

Neftlix

My friend (I have permission to represent him) received a PCN whilst parked in the visitor parking space of our car park for our block of flats. I had no permit to give him as they expired end of October 2024. The PCN is dated 04/11/2023 and I have email from VCS stating they didn't send out the new permits to our property managers until 30/11/2023 which were then distributed to us residents early January 2024. 

I explained the situation that I would have had a permit if they were to actually have issued new ones on time (prior to them expiring) and said we are awaiting delivery of the new permits from our property manager. (This was written in my appeal to them). VCS replied asking for me to send proof of a valid permit - clearly paying no attention to my appeal stating we are waiting for them.

I have been in contact with my property manager who stated that she requested this PCN to be reversed as of course it's not my fault and understood the situation. Couple weeks go by and I ring VCS and they state they haven't received anything so I query with property manager again - she again in an email with VCS cc'd states that this charge should have been reversed and will contact VCS again (23/01/24). The PCN charge is at £170 at this point.

Though this was the end of it.

Last week I received a LBC, Letter before claim, dated 06/02/2024 stating I owe £60 and could pay this £60 until 07/03/2024. Of course I thought this was all taken care of so I rang up VCS and queried again. They said that the property manager agreed on the (23/01/24) of amount £60 instead of £170 - something which the property manager has said to me that she said nothing of the sort and asking for the charge to be completely reversed. I rang up VCS explaining this (14/01/24) and telling them I have proof of the property manager asking them to reverse it & wondering why I wasn't informed of the £60 agreement. They couldn't provide proof of this agreement but they said it's an error and will be increasing it back to £170 if I don't pay midnight that night. I have a physical letter stating £60 payable until 07/03/24 but no means of paying that amount as the online portal states £170 - which takes precedent?

In short:
- VCS are creating lies about agreements with property managers
- VCS, agents of the property manager, are ignoring requests to reverse the charge.
- My property manager is completely confused about the situation and is unsure why VCS are being so difficult.
- LBC states £60 payable until 07/03/24 but online portal has now been amended after a phone call to £170 with pressure to pay by midnight that night £60.


Can I please have advice on how to deal with this?

Neftlix

Amendment permits expired end of October 2023. VCS sent property managers new permits end November 2023. New permits delivered to us residents early January 2024.

Coupon-mad

Neftlix said:

Amendment permits expired end of October 2023. VCS sent property managers new permits end November 2023. New permits delivered to us residents early January 2024.

Obviously unfair - an unrecoverable parking charge -  and your son should threaten a counterclaim of £300 in their reply to the LBC, and attach a copy of the emails with the MA which confirm that residents were not in possession of visitor permits over the winter, thus the alleged contract is void for impossibility.

Be ROBUST.

The reply goes in his name not yours.  Don't try to fight litigation on behalf of  someone (you can't do this; you are a third party).

Neftlix

It's my friend who visited us - they keep sending letters to me as the "registered keeper" which I've constantly said I wasn't but just has his permission to represent him. I had a phone call with VCS yesterday and he, and I quote, said "I'm not trying to BS you mate, you may think you have a good case but I've been to alot of court cases and more often than not - you lose". He gave no option to discuss the charge but to inform me either pay £60 now or £170 tomorrow and or go to court. He has since sent me an email today that no one will discuss it further with me via email or phone. There is a specific email to discuss PCNs being "litigation" but they haven't responded since early January..

The email stating they didn't send out the permits is from VCS themselves! If it comes to court is this simply enough stating impossibility? 

Coupon-mad

Neftlix said:

I had a phone call with VCS yesterday and he, and I quote, said "I'm not trying to BS you mate, you may think you have a good case but I've been to alot of court cases and more often than not - you lose".

He gave no option to discuss the charge but to inform me either pay £60 now or £170 tomorrow and or go to court. He has since sent me an email today that no one will discuss it further with me via email or phone. There is a specific email to discuss PCNs being "litigation" but they haven't responded since early January..

It's my friend who visited us - they keep sending letters to me as the "registered keeper" which I've constantly said I wasn't but just has his permission to represent him.

Perfect!  They are targeting you.  I presume just because you responded to the PCN saying you are the resident?

Just what you want.  You are neither keeper nor driver and you've told them that.

You won't be representing your friend.

If you are the named Defendant, you will be defending a claim yourself which is easy.

You have an absolute stonewall defence and should tell the eejit you will counterclaim for £300 for harassment of the wrong person.  

Send him the robust LBC response shown in the NEWBIES thread and add a paragraph saying you are neither the keeper nor the driver but they wouldn't listen.

Threaten a counterclaim, which will be £300 for damages for distress and waste of time caused to a resident of ESTATE NAME which is a course of conduct of harassment.

Finish by SPECIFICALLY asking for the recorded phone call with you (dated DATE) and telling him you will report VCS to the ICO if they fail to cough it up and/or if they share your data with Elms Legal or any other third party.

Neftlix

Correct - I'm the resident. My friend agreed for me to represent him as I thought this would be a simple affair. Can they just go after him again if they drop this case? I want this to be dropped completely and not just shifted on to my friend who lives 2 hours away.

------

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. ############
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:
[Correct address here]

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended. 

The circumstances:

- Permits expired 08.10.23.

- VCS sent new permits to FirstPort 30.11.23.

- PCN dated 09.11.23

As the PCN was received during this period whereby no permits had been issued, this makes the contract void due to frustration of contract with VCS being at fault for the circumstances (delaying issue of the permits).


I have repeatedly informed you that I am neither the driver nor the registered keeper of the vehicle in question which you have ignored & therefore will be seeking £300 for damages for distress and waste of time caused to a resident of MY NAME which is a course of conduct of harassment.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that.
I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £70 represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

I am also formally requesting the recording of the phone call I had with Lauren & Michael on the 14th February 2-24 and will be reporting VCS to the ICO if you fail to present it and/or if they share my data with Elms Legal or any other third party.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Can they just go after him again if they drop this case?

No because you aren't naming him.

The legal doctrine is 'void for impossibility'.

You should be threatening a counterclaim.

Johnersh

Go bespoke, not template.

You don't need to ask them to put anything on hold as the entire claim is misconceived. 

If you've told them you're not the driver or keeper and still they're coming for the o/p then you cannot possibly be liable and, yes, it may well constitute harassment - compare British Gas v Ferguson for an idea of the threshold.

Invite them to discontinue forthwith or you will defend [and counterclaim].

In any case, it's bonkers. It needs a fairly punchy "exhortation to leave" type reply, making unambiguously the key points.

Conversely, for the benefit of our PPC readers, my recent two hour overstay courtesy of PE was well earned, so I'll probably just pay that whilst it's cheap 

Neftlix

The legal doctrine is 'void for impossibility'. - This is clear to me but VCS are just not engaging at all. I'll email this over once again tbh judging by their current stance - might just have to go court and allow the judge to see what scammers VCS are.

Neftlix

I sent VCS the following email:

Hi VCS,

Please find attached clear evidence that renders the contract you're attempting to enforce redundant due to doctrine of impossibility relating to your delay of issue of permits making it impossible for me to fulfil my side of the contract as per the T&C's of the car park.

The circumstances:

- Permits expired 08.10.23. (See "Old Permit,jpeg")

- VCS sent new permits to FirstPort 30.11.23. (See "Email A.eml")

- PCN dated 09.11.23 (See "NTK.jpeg")

As the PCN was received during this period whereby no permits had been issued, this makes the contract void referencing the doctrine of impossibility. No one could fulfil the contract as your sign clearly states "valid permit" - something you have admitted to having issued over a month after the original permits expired thus making it impossible for anyone, not just myself, in this situation to have a valid permit. If you had issued new permits in good time & prior to the expiration of 08.10.23 I would have no issues at all and would easily be able to fulfil my side of the contract. However, due to your actions you've rendered that impossible due to no fault of my own.

I've continuously tried to inform you that I am neither the registered keeper nor driver and despite my efforts, very little care has been taken in this case. This is clearly demonstrated in the rejection of my appeal which you asked for a valid permit to be produced by 29.11.2023. Again, impossible as you held onto these for another day & sent this out 30.11.2023. (See "Lack of care.pdf"). Again, unprofessional behaviour was shown once more when you said that the property manager agreed a £60 sum to be paid on the 23.01.24 which no evidence of this can be provided with the property manager, Vanessa, outright denying & said nothing of the sort. (See "Email B.eml" & "Email C.eml"). 

Let me know whether you accept this response and agree to cancel the PCN to save both my time & your resources in court. I will not be paying now nor will I be engaging with a 3rd party debt collecting firm prior to court (if it comes to that). FirstPort themselves have said that this is at no fault to myself due to the delays between yourselves so if anything, this is something to review on your next client meeting.

If you choose not to drop this, I am formally requesting the recorded phone call with you (dated 14.02.24) and if you fail to provide me this, I will report you to the ICO and/or if you share my data with Elms Legal or any other third party. Further, if you continue to pursue this claim I will pursue a counterclaim of amount £300 for harassment citing "British Gas v Ferguson" in relation to the sheer amount of time, stress & anxiety you have caused for the last months.

Kind Regards,

----

They replied 10 minutes later and requested the time & date of the phone call and I just supplied.

Also forwarded this to our local MP to just illustrate the cowboys operate in our city.

Coupon-mad

'Hi VCS' & 'kind regards' is not how to structure a formal email.

And as I said, this is not the right phrase:
 
"due to doctrine of impossibility"