Jump to content

lookinforinfo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    5,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

lookinforinfo last won the day on September 1

lookinforinfo had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,364 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

3,741 profile views
  1. All these parking crooks use any slight deviation from their Terms Conditions as a means of making money out of motorists. But hopefully their days are numbered with new legislation coming in to force soon. In the meantime we all have to treat them with contempt and thwart their chances to make money whenever possible.
  2. In order for an NTK to be compliant it has to comply with PoFA. If it is not compliant then the keeper cannot be held liable for the PCN. I have included the wording from S8 though s9 is identical in the part I have copied below. You will see that at the beginning "The Notice 'must' " which in Law means the wording is to be stictly observed (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); (d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice to keeper, and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (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; (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case). If you compare that with the NTK you were sent you will see that your one does not include " (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) " Your NTK also states that if you don't pay the £100 that you will be liable for debt collection charges up to £60. this contradicts section 4 of PoFA where it covers the right of the parking crooks to pursue motorists [5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). So their NTK is non compliant in two places. In any event Ambreen is wrong to declare that if they cannot pursue the keeper than they can assume that the keeper was the driver. The court will not entertain that idea -VCS need to provide strict proof that the keeper is the driver. So despite Ambreen claiming that they can proceed against the keeper she is wrong. [17,18 and !9 of her WS]. They quote Parking Eye v Beavis [22] which is irrelevant since that was a free car park and yours is a residential parking space covered by a lease which VCS cannot overturn.
  3. Hideyspidey I am so sorry to have confused you in my post 180. It was intended for another poster! Clearway signs are not relevant in your case and so you should delete it from your WS. However you can argue that the Privacy notice on your windscreen was a non compliant Notice to Driver so the Notice to keeper should not have arrived before 28 days had elapsed. Therefore they cannot transfer the paying of the alleged debt to the keeper as the NTK was non compliant. If the Judge does not agree with the Privacy notice being a NTD and the NTK arrived within the 14 days you can still complain that it is not compliant with PoFA for another reason which I will deal with tomorrow.
  4. I would add that their operations should be described as unlawful rather than illegal. Your letter is somewhat lacking in getting across what a joke their case actually is. FTMDave's letter did get that across and while I concede that it may not be your style I feel it would have been more effective in attempting to dissuade them from going to Court.
  5. Could you please include the rest of the PCN as there are stipulations on them that CPP must adhere to inorder to comply with the Protection of freedoms Act. Without those, CPP cannot hold the keeper liable for the debt [if there is one]. So do not appeal to them as that may reveal who was driving.
  6. Although I could not find the transcript I did find Parking Cowboys rebut the argument that the keeper was the driver if there was no contrary evidence. The Judge in the Elliot case did have a number of pointers that indicated that the keeper was the driver. Keeper liability – Rebutting the Elliot Vs Loake argument WWW.PARKINGCOWBOYS.CO.UK Here we discuss the Elliot Vs Loake case of 1982 and why it does not set a legal precedent for holding the keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge
  7. Very well done El. Your parents should be proud of your work. I cannot believe that VCS will proceed with either case as there has been no breach. So I would include Jake's letter where they say that they believe they have a strong case to show VCS up for what they are. A bunch of crooks. I would also add that while there was no breach of their T&Cs it must mean that your parents had their GDPR breached by VCS and you understand that the current rate is at least £750 per breach and I would ask the Judge to charge them for their breach. Also I have a feeling that their large entrance sign was not there originally. Put them to strict proof of when it was erected. I am not even sure if their pole mounted one was their originally either. It isn't legible in any event when driving into the car park. And neither of the signs appear to coincide with their map. In fact that large sign doesn't seem to be there at all on the map.
  8. Gladstones are very strange. They are saying you haven't given them a defence when thye haven't bothered to produce a case that's worth defending.
  9. FTMDave is right when he says that your WS is great but disjointed. I have just looked up a case where our member one for the same reason as you at Southend airport. VCS lost because the contract they had did not have a valid contract with the land owner. VCS appealed but it deosn't appear to have gone ahead. The court asked for a transcript of the case [which would have been a couple of hundred pounds] plus the cost of the appeal with no chance of getting their money back even if they won since the road is covered by Byelaws which outrank VCS and their ridiculous charge. If your read his WS it may help with the layout of your own. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417985-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-london-southend-airportclaim-dismissed-now-vcs-asking-for-leave-to-appeal/ Do not be too quick to send off your WS as you may get the VCS one soon and they are absolute rubbish which can be torn apart. It would be helpful too if you could get a decent response from the DVLA though I wouldn't put my life on it. The DVLA give anodyne responses when they think they have made a mistake. Please post up their WS whenever you get it including the contract etc.AND if you haven't received it by the time you have to send in yours, make a point of that to the Judge.
  10. You right Nightnajjers, Eddie Stobart Group have been the land owners since last year. I knew Southend airport were not the land owners since I remembered one of our Caggers had won their case on that very point. [Wood DD was the member ]. The Finance Director is able to sign contracts but it should either be a Director of the Stobart group signing the contract or there should be a letter of confirmation from the Stobart company [also signed by at least one of their directors] that Southend airport ltd are able to sign on behalf of the Stobart group.
  11. Re. the contract. As East Midlands airport appear to the the land owners then there should be a reference of some sort that allows Southend airport to sign on behalf of the East Midlands airport. And the person signing the contract for Southend airport should be a director of the company and their name should be printed as well. You can confirm he is a director by checking their Company accounts under "People".
  12. You could write back to the DVLA saying that VCS are misleading the DVLA since you were actually on a private road within the airport which you believe is covered by Bye Laws and thus not relevant land. Carry on to say that VCS are losing many well defended cases in Court within all airports and you believe that your GDPR was breached by VCS applying for your data when the land was not relevant land . Ask them if they are informed when the parking companies lose in court so as to cover the DVLA when breaches of GDPR occur . If not, shouldn't they be doing it if only to give them some semblance of reality when they say they have a "robust" system in place to monitor the actions of the parking companies. There is no reasonable cause for VCS taking the action they did in your case and it is time the DVLA stopped aiding and abetting certain parking companies from what amounts to fraudulent behaviour. If VCS sure that yours was a valid case they would surely have given the DVLA the correct information about the position of your vehicle. You therefore would like an explanation for the discrepancy in the statement of VCS in order to get your data.
  13. El21 in many cases debt collectors take on work form the carparking crooks on a no win no fee basis. If they do win , they charge £60 or so. Obviously when you are taken to Court, it means that the debt collector has failed. Nevertheless the crooks still add the £60 to their bill for the debt collector. That is the abuse of process since you are being charged £60 for a debt that should not be due. As far as parking time is concerned, councils normally allow 3 hours for parking where their are a large number of stores. Recently there have been some councils who are now granting shorter periods for smaller shopping areas. Most times the crooks do not bother applying for permission since it can take councils a few weeks to come to a decision to grant permission. That wastes the crooks earning period especially if the council come back and ask for changes to the agreement as that wastes another few weeks. Here is another case you can quote where the Judge claimed the charge would be a penalty. https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/4988938869?.intl=uk&.lang=en-GB&.partner=none&.src=fp
  14. That is an excellent WS-you have put a lot of work in to it. Anywhere about 50 points long for a WS is probably about right when you have such verbiage from the VCS WS.
  15. It would help if you sent an sar to HX to get the contract details of the land owner which may help decide HX to allow the set aside.
×
×
  • Create New...