Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 2nd Oct 17, 3:24 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 7Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 3:24 PM
    Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield 2nd Oct 17 at 3:24 PM
    My partners daughter allegedly overstayed in the above mentioned car park while driving partners car. Had one of their pseudo NTD's on windscreen. I received NTK as I am the registered keeper.


    I have appealed using the template in the newbies section and have now received a reply rejecting my appeal.


    What should I do now?


    Your valued advice would be appreciated.
Page 3
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 23rd Apr 18, 9:14 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Hi all,


    It would be appreciated if someone could comment on my draft reply to VCS's Letter Before Claim please. I was angry when I typed it so it may need toning down.


    All I really want to say is that as the LBC does not comply with the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2 I do not recognise it as a valid LBC and can therefore not respond.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 18, 12:19 AM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I again ask
    You need to sort out that split infinitive, as it really grated when I read it! And this needs the end bit removed to make it read better:
    in compensation for my distress and that of my family, caused by your baseless and nasty financial attack. on me is causing me.
    Apart from that, good letter, especially attaching your previous one again. Email this if you have a VCS email addy (info@...?) no snail mail letters that they can deny receiving or refuse to sign for (don't waste your money).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 24th Apr 18, 8:35 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Thanks C-m, much appreciated (and the grammar lesson!)
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 15th May 18, 2:44 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Hi all,
    I have received another letter from VCS in response to my LBS rebuttal (link below).
    hxxps://postimg.cc/image/tn4ljjgjv/

    They state that they are satisfied that their Letter Before Claim meets the requirements of the Pre-Action Protocol although it is clearly deficient. How to I challenge this? Just repeat what I said in my previous letter?

    Regarding keeper liability they say that they can utilise Schedule 4 of POFA, but I am sure that they have not complied with those requirements. For instance the NTK did not indicate the period that the car was parked, just the contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
    They also say that in the alternative they will seek to rely upon the Law of Agency. Are they suggesting that the driver was acting as my agent? They have not quoted a case reference. Surely they have to state which they will be relying on? How do I shoot this one down?
    They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?
    They state that a contract was established by quoting ParkingEye v Beavis. I didnít think that was relevant here.
    They claim to have included a site overhead plan but this was not provided.

    The main thrust of my defence will be that I was not the driver. I cannot see that they can use POFA2012 as their NTK does not comply in a couple of areas:
    • NTK did not state period that car was parked, just a contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
    • They havenít stated that a NTD was placed on the car (it was the myparkingcharge thing) but say that the contravention was brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage.
    I am correct in thinking that this is enough to stop them using POFA?

    As they are not claiming to have placed an NTD on the car then I believe they should have waited 28 days before obtaining my details from the DVLA. A NTK was received within a few days. Is this misuse of my data?

    Advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 2:51 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You are looking at the wrong thing on the NTK...how do so many people miss the really obvious giveaway that it's a non POFA NTK, the words that say they will continue to pursue you 'on the assumption you were the driver'?

    Compare that to 9(2)f of Schedule 4.

    Forget the other little issues.

    They also say that in the alternative they will seek to rely upon the Law of Agency. Are they suggesting that the driver was acting as my agent? They have not quoted a case reference. Surely they have to state which they will be relying on? How do I shoot this one down?
    By searching the forum for CPS v AJH Films to find loads written before.

    They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?
    You can't, you have no right to see it yet. Forget it. They will have to produce it before a hearing, in evidence later.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 15th May 18, 2:59 PM
    • 35,624 Posts
    • 19,852 Thanks
    Quentin
    You say you want to rely on POFA


    Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you


    You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 15th May 18, 3:19 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Thanks for the quick reply Coupon-mad. I have read through 9(2)f of Schedule 4 and I'm not getting it. Can you elaborate please?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:22 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Copy out 9(2)f.

    Then compare that warning, to what they've said about liability, in the NTK. It says 'on the assumption you were the driver' doesn't it?

    Where do you see that in Schedule 4 at all? You DON'T. Assuming a keeper was the actual driver is the complete opposite of the law.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 15th May 18, 3:32 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    I did think that it was perhaps something that was not stated in the POFA, but what about the right to recover in (ii) below?


    (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given!!!8212;
    (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
    the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 15th May 18, 3:48 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    C-m, the NTK does not say 'on the assumption you were the driver'. It says 'we will have the right to recover from you, the keeper, any unpaid balance of the parking charge'. Do you think that this effectively means the same thing?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 3:51 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Show us the NTK, both sides (redact your data).

    If you already have, repeat the link rather than ask us to look back at an older post on page one.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 15th May 18, 4:20 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    https://postimg.cc/gallery/258gislek/
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 18, 4:38 PM
    • 7,261 Posts
    • 6,783 Thanks
    KeithP
    See that bit at the bottom of page 1 starting "Please be warned:"?

    Compare it with para 9(2)(f) of PoFA Schedule 4.

    PoFA says:
    (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given -
    (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
    (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
    Your NtK says:
    ...if after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the Issue Date of this Notice...
    The issue date of the notice cannot be the same as the "that on which the notice to keeper is given".
    Sub-paragraphs (4) and (6) of PoFA para (9) explains the word "given".
    Last edited by KeithP; 15-05-2018 at 4:46 PM.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 18, 10:41 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree.

    It doesn't assume the keeper was the driver (sorry OP, we do see some that say this, but yours doesn't, I agree with you) but it gets the 28 day period to keeper liability wrong and misleads the recipient by at least two days - could even be out by more days, in the event of posting on a Thursday/Friday.

    No, it doesn't make it void, before you ask that.

    Yes, it does make it not compliant with the POFA, misleading and (arguably, but it would be up to a Judge's interpretation) not capable of invoking keeper liability.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 15-05-2018 at 10:43 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 16th May 18, 10:03 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    Thanks for your valued comments KeithP and C-m.
    Where does this leave me with shooting down their right to rely on POFA? There are other errors that I mentioned before, such as:
    NTK did not state period that car was parked, just a contravention time and reason (parked for longer than the max period permitted).
    They havenít stated that a NTD was placed on the car (it was the myparkingcharge thing) but say that the contravention was brought to the attention of the driver by clear signage.
    They also say in their letter that they CAN use POFA not that they WILL.
    Can I ask them to commit to relying on POFA?
    Just wondering if this is a new version of NTK from VCS and if the POFA statement has been tested.
    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 16th May 18, 12:58 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    I have just revisited the parking site at Brook Shaw Retail Park and noticed that all the signage has been replaced, along with a new sign giving the name of the Managing Agent. Fortunately Google Maps still shows the old signage.
    Originally there wasn't any signage at the main entrance to the site. There was misleading signage at the entrance stating 'The Bed Shop - Free Car Park'. There was also another entrance at the time that had no signage. The signage around the car park was minimal and there was also another sign to say 'Parking for Gym Members Only'.
    There is now a new sign at the entrance and more signs around the car park.
    I think that I should make this the main thrust of my defence.


    Comments would be appreciated.
    • Cyclopath
    • By Cyclopath 16th May 18, 8:46 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Cyclopath
    In response to the OP's question:
    "They again refuse to provide a copy of their contract with the Landowner. How can I force their hand on this?"
    C-m wrote:
    You can't, you have no right to see it yet. Forget it. They will have to produce it before a hearing, in evidence later.

    But doesn't the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims oblige the Claimant to produce at least a redacted copy of their contract with the landowner, or explain why it is not available? Wouldn't their refusal to produce the contract be a breach of said protocol, the "express purpose of which is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time" [according to LoC123]?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 16th May 18, 8:53 PM
    • 7,261 Posts
    • 6,783 Thanks
    KeithP
    No. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims obliges the Claimant to provide a copy of the contract between the Claimant and Defendant from which the alleged debt arises.

    That contract will typically be the signs.

    The ATA's CoP obliges the PPC to show a contract between the PPC and their client - the landholder.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 18, 9:06 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,136 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I agree with KeithP, the landowner contract is not something that has to be disclosed in pre-action communications, they would just say it'd protected information due to the DPA and that they would show it in court evidence if required.

    It's peripheral to the actual 'contract' that has been allegedly breached. It's unimportant at this stage.

    Can I ask them to commit to relying on POFA?
    Why woud you? Doesn't help wither way, you can see the NTK isn't fully compliant and it would be up to a District Judge (DJ) to interpret if it's OK or not (and some Judges would say yes, and some say no).
    Just wondering if this is a new version of NTK from VCS and if the POFA statement has been tested.
    No it isn't very new. We've seen that one for several months, I remember it, but also another where they used to 'assume the keeper was the driver'. Your one definitely misstates the liability period for a keeper, but there's no point chewing over it any more.

    ''DJ lottery'' applies in small claims! You know your arguments but at the end of the day the hearing depends on the evidence provided and the Judge's view.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • RichieBoy56
    • By RichieBoy56 18th May 18, 12:12 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    RichieBoy56
    What about the inadequate/confusing signage that I mentioned in Post#56? I take it that this is enough to defeat them.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,113Posts Today

6,588Users online

Martin's Twitter