Ring Go bought ticket after being in carpark for 16 minutes

Frustrated_Traveller

Furthermore, I have now submitted this request through Travelodge's contact us portal

To whom it may concern,

I have received a parking ticket from 3rd Feb 2023 that is incorrect and I would like you to contact Vehicle Control Services to void and cancel it.

A ticket was purchased for this vehicle for 2 hours of parking and the vehicle was parked for 1hr 18mins.  However, an incorrect PCN has since been received from VCS.

As the keeper of this vehicle I have appealed this ticket and this appeal has been rejected by VCS Ltd who have made incorrect statements in their appeal response.  Please can you contact VCS Ltd and have this PCN removed.

Best regards,

1505grandad

Just a reminder  -  the contract (sign) is with Excel but you have been corresponding with VCS an entirely separate entity.

Frustrated_Traveller

Hi there, I've received the below letter of claim from DCB (Direct Collections Bailiffs).  I have also received a couple of other letters from them (below) which I've ignored up until now.
Please can you advise if I should engage or keep waiting?

Many thanks!

KeithP

Two different companies.
Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and DCB Legal Ltd.

You need to react to the Letter of Claim as described in the second post of the NEWBIES thread, but the other two letters are just debt collectors letters and the fourth post of the NEWBIES thread describes how to deal with them.

LDast

But the driver entered a contract with Excel Parking. How can VCS a separate company, file a claim against the keeper? You may want to point out this embarrassing issue to the intellectually malnourished DCB Legal. Or, maybe don't. Let that fact show up in your defence once they file the inevitable claim.

Whatever happens, as you are in the fortunate position of having to deal with a claim that will be issued on behalf of the creditor by DCB Legal, as long as you follow the advice and use the robust template defence, you can guarantee that it will eventually be discontinued and you will see your username in lights on the AOBTD thread here:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Coupon-mad

I would not tip DCB Legal off that the signs are in the name of Excel. Just use the suggested LBC response in the NEWBIES thread.

Save your silver bullet for defence.

Frustrated_Traveller

Thank you very much, really helpful.  I am sending this note on the DCBLegal portal:

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. XXXX

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 delay any claim - is XXXX

This ticket was issued incorrectly and should be voided.

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

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').

A RingGo ticket was purchased for this vehicle on 3rd Feb during the period the ticket covers. The ticket purchased was for 2 hours of parking and the vehicle left the car park after parking for 1hr 18mins so the ticket covered the period of parking plus a potential additional 42 minutes.

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 am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023). 

As you and your client are well aware, there is no keeper liability because the airport is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So your client cannot pursue me as keeper. 

As your client cannot pursue me as driver or keeper, it would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously and seek costs in relation to your client’s unreasonable conduct.

In addition, the invoice is have made a complaint to VCS in regards to a number of incorrect statements in a letter from them:

Statement 1. "The above detailed vehicle parked without a valid payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle on site" - this is untrue, a parking ticket was purchased for 2 hours and the vehicle was in the car park for a total of 1hr18mins.

Statement 2. "In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you were the driver of the vehicle at the time it parked in the car park." - this is entirely false.  In the appeal I confirmed that I am the keeper of the vehicle, I did not confirm I was the driver.

These blatant untruths from your appeal response will be highlighted to a judge in any subsequent court claim, should you deem it necessary to try to take this issue that far.

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 dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this net 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?

Yours faithfully,

BBDriver

Wait and check with the experts on this site before sending this as I can see you have used the following paragraph:

As you and your client are well aware, there is no keeper liability because the airport is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So your client cannot pursue me as keeper. 

Powis Street in Woolwich is not on airport land as far as I am aware. You may need to change this.

Frustrated_Traveller

V.good point.  Might be tricky landing a plane in Woolwich!  Thank you for the spot

Frustrated_Traveller

Reading the definition of 'relevant land' here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
I'm not clear whether the carpark would or wouldn't fall into this category.  So I'll remove that paragraph from my response.

Also, I was there recently and the signage is different to what I'd posted before from Google Streetview.  It is in fact Excel Parking and there is a reference to the 10min purchase time limit.  Would you suggest this undermines my argument that I had a valid ticket for the required time (2hrs for 1.2hrs parking) but didn't buy ticket within 10min window?