Sanity Check Request- VCS parking charges

absolute_absolution

Hi all,

I’d really appreciate a sense-check from the forum on whether I’ve handled this correctly and how strong my position is if this escalates further.

Thanks in advance, and also thank you to everyone who contributes to the excellent resources here.

—

I’m a tenant in a gated residential development in England with an allocated parking bay (the bay number matches my flat). My tenancy agreement simply states “Has Parking”. I hold a valid resident permit and have been using my allocated bay for over a year.

Parking signage contains the usual language, e.g. Entry to this land means entering contract with VCS; "Valid Permit Holder", and if you do not display the permit in full view, you agree to pay the fine, etc.

I received PCNs over a weekend from VCS after the permit fell out of view. I complained repeatedly to the land management agent, but they were ultimately unable to convince VCS to retract the PCN. In the agent's responses, it appeared that both VCS and the managing agent accept that I am an authorised resident and that the issue relates to non-display rather than unauthorised parking.

I provided evidence to the agent (tenancy and permit), which they confirmed was shared with VCS.

I appealed to VCS as the registered keeper (no driver identified). As expected, VCS did not cancel, citing that I did not provide driver name, nor picture of my permit. VCS then offered to cancel both PCNs for a fee as a “goodwill gesture”, stating the charges were issued correctly. I did not accept this.

I have now received a “Final Notice of Debt Recovery” from DCBL for an increased amount, along with repeated phone calls. My current understanding is that these can be ignored unless/until a formal Letter Before Claim is issued.

I understand that parking operations monitor this forum, so I'll just briefly mention that the NTKs are not compliant to the strict wording of PoFA on two fronts.

—

My current understanding of my position is:

• I was authorised to park in my allocated bay at all time
• The issue is non-display rather than unauthorised parking
• This is a residential setting, not a public car park
• Driver was never identified

Of note, there may be issues with PoFA compliance on the NTKs

May I have your feedback on:

• Whether I’ve handled the process correctly so far
• Confirm ignoring DCBL at this stage is appropriate
• How strong these cases tend to be where the driver was authorised but the permit was not displayed
• Whether the earlier offer goodwill gesture is a sign VCS are unlikely to litigate

Thanks again!

kryten3000

Yes, you've done the right thing so far.

The only circumstances you ever contact DCBL (blue headed paper) is to correct your address for service.
You never want a parking company, debt recovery agent or solicitor to have more than one address because they tend to "accidentally" issue to the wrong one.
Your rights as a resident should override any signs that VCS have erected.
The fact that VCS have offered an "admin fee" reduction is definitely evidence that they have decided this is a weak case from their point of view.

As for POFA compliance - VCS used to use wording that said "28 days from issue" instead of "28 days beginning with the day after service". I have helped people win cases on this exact point.

Car1980

A Sword of Damocles case. Two or three times a day you're at risk of a financial penalty.

Is the permit adhesive in any way?

Find out what the flat's lease says as well. Ask your landlord or another owner-occuper in the development. Quite often the flat's lease allows use of the space with no restrictions.

Coupon-mad

The residents should object loudly and get VCS removed asap. You do not need a pseudo permit scheme waiting to trip you up.

absolute_absolution

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81945503#Comment_81945503

Thanks for the pointer.

Without divulging too much, as I understand operators monitor this forum, the POFA issue is not on the "28day" point, but rather being non-compliant to the requirements of mandatory content stated in POFA.

absolute_absolution

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81945862#Comment_81945862

It was nowhere near that many! The permit was not adhesive. What are the implications?

Yes parking is on the lease contract. Is there language that should be mandatory on the lease regarding parking?

Car1980

No, I mean if you live there you could get caught in the morning, or when you return from work, or when you come back from Tesco. It's a constant risk you should not have to suffer.

If the permit is not adhesive then it's designed not to be easily displayed - on purpose. And it would be a unfair contractual term - "you must display this item that has no means of staying put and you agree to pay £100 every time the permit doesn't stay put."

Please show us the exact wording in the lease where it refers to parking (not the tenancy agreement). It may say something like "the lessee has the right to park a motor vehicle in space 123"

Coupon-mad

I recommend keeping a blob of blutack in your glovebox to secure a permit. Never fails.

DO NOT PAY VCS.

Encourage your landlords to get them removed if you residents all can.

absolute_absolution

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81946488#Comment_81946488

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81946778#Comment_81946778

Yea the permit is blutacked and taped haha.
I do not intend to pay VCS. But I doubt I'd be able to convince the residents of the whole development to get on board.
Lease-wise, it says it "has parking in space #flat number#.

Coupon-mad

You have primacy of contract and already had a right to use that bay. Sit tight.

VCS have offered you nothing of any value therefore the elements of a contract (valuable consideration, offer, acceptance) aren't there.

Car1980

"Lease-wise, it says it "has parking in space #flat number#."

Great. What is the full sentence and in what context?

Nothing anywhere about having to abide by any of the management company's rules and regulations?