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
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 31st Dec 18, 3:12 PM
    • 7Posts
    • 1Thanks
    Ormonde
    VCS - No NTK
    • #1
    • 31st Dec 18, 3:12 PM
    VCS - No NTK 31st Dec 18 at 3:12 PM
    Hi guys,

    I have read through the newbie thread but still unsure on how to act and I'm struggling to find information to help the person in question with the situation.

    An initial window screen document was found due parking outside the bays.

    It refers the person in charge of the car to 'myparkingcharge.com' but the actual reference number is not readable (not due to weather, but just bad handwriting, neither the person in charge of the car or others who were asked could correctly find the reference number. Now in hindsight that could be different? Due to knowing the company.

    So, the person in question awaited in the NTK.

    Fast forward to 59 days later, a letter came through the post. 'Parking Charge Notice.. Final Reminder - Do Not Ignore'. In the letter it was stated that the notice to the driver had been posted (30 days from the day the original windscreen notice was provided).

    Please note that the person actually received the letter a week later than 59 days and had until the 28th of December to appeal. It states that no appeals process since it is not within the time frame, but late appeals may be considered at their sole discretion and that must be completed by post.

    Due to it being Christmas with limited time to put together an appeal and post it due to public holidays, an appeal is getting sent following New Year.

    The person has had no opportunity to appeal before due to a complete lack of information.

    The person is looking to appeal stating that no NTK has been received and no sufficient evidence was provided before they managed to get the keeper details from the DVLA.

    Right now the charge has increased to 160 pounds (believe initially it would have discounted from 100 to 60 but cannot know).

    I would kindly welcome some advice, on how to go about an appeal, if the above would be strong enough and after the most likely rejection, going forward from there.

    All the best,
    Ormonde

    PS - Happy New Year
    Last edited by Ormonde; 31-12-2018 at 4:19 PM. Reason: Changes to wording
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 31st Dec 18, 3:56 PM
    • 23,033 Posts
    • 36,582 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 31st Dec 18, 3:56 PM
    • #2
    • 31st Dec 18, 3:56 PM
    If you can get an initial appeal off to VCS (NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #1 blue text template), send it to show you have tried to start the process of resolving the matter. It will be rejected (regardless of timescale) and you might be offered a further appeal to the IAS (but they may tell you it's too late. If offered, ignore that option, there is really no prospect of winning and the PPC is given extra impetus to pursue you.

    Thereafter you ignore any attempt at debt recovery, but respond to a Letter Before Claim or real court papers and defend the case in court. Some help via the sticky (post #2), but note we are not a legal forum.

    Have you tried a complaint to the landowner?
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 31st Dec 18, 4:01 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    • #3
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:01 PM
    • #3
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:01 PM
    Thanks for the reply.

    I will use the blue text template and respond by post to them and include the fact that no NTK was received. Not expecting anything from this, as you stated above.

    Also agree with what I've read abut ignoring the IAS.

    I could try and write a complaint to the landowner, its quite a large organisation. Worth a shot though I guess.

    Would much rather it not go to court, but seems like its the only option, just annoying I've had no chance at all to respond due to them not sending a letter and the details being unuseable on the windscreen.

    Kind Regards,
    Ormonde
    • Redx
    • By Redx 31st Dec 18, 4:03 PM
    • 22,231 Posts
    • 28,106 Thanks
    Redx
    • #4
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:03 PM
    • #4
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:03 PM
    1) An initial window screen document was found due to some illegal parking, the parking was not in the bays as per the requirements of the car park.

    2) It refers the person in charge of the car to 'myparkingfine.com'

    3) Right now the fine has increased to 160 pounds (believe initially it would have discounted from 100 to 60 but cannot know).
    Originally posted by Ormonde
    1) it would not have been "illegal", no laws were broken , it would have broken their parking rules, totally different scenario

    2) I think you mean myparkingcharge.com ( no f word)

    3) the F word again, there was no "fine" , just an invoice , nothing more , no such thing as a "fine" in this industry, which is why they do not use that word at all

    the chances are that the default parking charge on the sign said 100 and was discounted by 40% down to 60 for early payment (the discount)

    any extra 60 taking it to 160 are additional debt collector fees on top of the 100 charge and can be disputed if it goes to court
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Redx
    • By Redx 31st Dec 18, 4:05 PM
    • 22,231 Posts
    • 28,106 Thanks
    Redx
    • #5
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:05 PM
    • #5
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:05 PM
    Thanks for the reply.

    I will use the blue text template and respond by post to them and include the fact that no NTK was received. Not expecting anything from this, as you stated above.

    Also agree with what I've read abut ignoring the IAS.

    I could try and write a complaint to the landowner, its quite a large organisation. Worth a shot though I guess.

    Would much rather it not go to court, but seems like its the only option, just annoying I've had no chance at all to respond due to them not sending a letter and the details being unuseable on the windscreen.

    Kind Regards,
    Ormonde
    Originally posted by Ormonde
    yes, you appear to have understood those basics in this unregulated industry

    this is why there is a new law going through parliament

    https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/parkingcodeofpractice.html
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 31st Dec 18, 4:26 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    • #6
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:26 PM
    • #6
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:26 PM
    Thanks Redx

    Had a read through the bill, things will hopefully change.

    I've updated the wording on the original post, I understand its an invoice not a fine and also looked up the last point about the additional 60 pound. Definitely something I will use if it comes to court, asking them to show proof.

    I'll get the appeal sent out after New Year and keep the thread updated.

    Should I also put any proof of the original windscreen notice (a scanned copy) in the letter? Or save it for later down the line?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 31st Dec 18, 4:35 PM
    • 22,231 Posts
    • 28,106 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:35 PM
    • #7
    • 31st Dec 18, 4:35 PM
    the original windscreen notice is something they dreamed up as an interim "sc@m" and has been done to death on this forum over the last two or more years


    to all intents and purposes, it is merely a warning and not a NOTICE TO DRIVER so I would leave it on one side and concentrate as KEEPER on the postal NOTICE TO KEEPER , assume that no official notice was left on the windscreen and as keeper the postal NTK is the first contact about it and is what you are reacting to
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 6th Apr 19, 10:17 AM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    • #8
    • 6th Apr 19, 10:17 AM
    Court Claim
    • #8
    • 6th Apr 19, 10:17 AM
    Hi, just an update.

    The claim has been ticking along, I received the LBC and acted accordingly as per the Newbie Thread.

    Got half of the information requested for in the SAR (no details of the contract between the land owner and VCS). They also have a letter which was apparently sent to my address, however, this was not received and will continue to dispute this.

    I have now received the county court claim, filled out MCOL and issued the AoS. I have until 28th April to fill out the defence, This is WIP and will put up a draft early next week.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Apr 19, 11:12 AM
    • 23,033 Posts
    • 36,582 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 19, 11:12 AM
    • #9
    • 6th Apr 19, 11:12 AM
    Got half of the information requested for in the SAR (no details of the contract between the land owner and VCS)
    You’re not entitled to that via the SAR process - a SAR is about personal information held about you and your vehicle’s VRM. A landowner contract would contain neither.

    You can however ask for a copy of the contract as part of your response to the LBC - but you’ll have a job getting one from them!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Apr 19, 2:17 PM
    • 14,283 Posts
    • 16,233 Thanks
    KeithP
    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    .
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 6th Apr 19, 9:42 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    Hi Keith,

    Issue date was 29th March
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Apr 19, 9:53 PM
    • 14,283 Posts
    • 16,233 Thanks
    KeithP
    Issue date was 29th March
    Originally posted by Ormonde
    With a Claim Issue Date of 29th March, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 1st May 2019 to file your Defence. A few more days than you thought.

    That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
    .
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 15th Apr 19, 8:05 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    Started shelling out my defence, I would be grateful for any advice.

    DEFENCE

    1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

    2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

    2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was allegedly posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    2.2. No NTK was served to the registered keeper. Only upon request of a SAR was the NTK first seen. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA' has not been followed and therefore a charge cannot be brought to the registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide postal confirmation of the NTK.

    2.3. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

    3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

    4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gate and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'.

    5.1. The Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

    5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

    5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

    6. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

    7. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case 100. The claim includes an additional 60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

    8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

    9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

    10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

    Name
    Signature
    Date
    Last edited by Ormonde; 15-04-2019 at 8:24 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 19, 2:25 PM
    • 70,253 Posts
    • 82,860 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    If the purported NTK wasn't posted till day 30 then it wasn't premature, it was actually posted too late for para 9 of the POFA (given no PCN existed):
    It is reasonable to conclude , from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was allegedly posted, that the hybrid/illegible windscreen note that the Claimant asserts in the POC was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    I also think, change #5 etc. to this (you had no #5.3 anyway!):

    5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gate and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'. The Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available, no consideration flowed between the parties and ; there is was no licence to park.

    6. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum pleaded in damages or for as a matter of trespass. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

    And make your existing #6, a later paragraph #10 so it follows the one in #9 abut the landowner contract, so it all flows better.

    Then 'In summary' becomes #11.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Ormonde
    • By Ormonde 16th Apr 19, 9:05 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Ormonde
    Thanks Coupon, really appreciate the help. Sorry about the numbers, I did expect a few teaks and didn't finalise them.

    I've got a little more to add, and will revise accordingly.
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

2,119Posts Today

7,467Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin