Jump to content

lookinforinfo

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    5,830
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

Everything posted by lookinforinfo

  1. Please also take photos of the sign at the entrance as well as any signs inside the car park especially any that are different. Please take them from a distance where we can read them and if there is a payment machine, the sign on the machine or very close to it that explains their T&Cs for the machine.
  2. Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that what they have given you is an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance. You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in the NTK that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2] the notice must [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 does not include [if all the applicable conditions under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.
  3. Well done El21. You put a lot of time and research into that WS which paid off. Funny that the Judge only mentioned that the NTK was not compliant with regard to the time period but not query that you had not breached their T&Cs so never liable for a PCN in the first place. Pity that since had the Judge thrown out the case you would have a great chance of claiming several pounds from them through a breach of GDPR. I have used that time period argument before as the reason for the NTK being non compliant and it hasn't been mentioned by the Judge so you have to put everything in to your WS since the Judge only has to pick one of the points in your favour to throw out the case.
  4. Interestingly enough that car park used to allow 90 minutes free parking back in 2018 when Athena were the parking company. I am 100% certain that the change was not authorised by the Council and doubtful that the 90 minutes was authorised either. How long can you park in Lidl car park? 90 minutes "The system allows for up to 90 minutes of parking, with a 10 minute grace period, should a customer change their mind. "To validate parking, customers can simply scan their till receipt and register their vehicle at one of the terminals in the store."6 Oct 2018 https://www.bristolpost.co.uk › whats-on › shopping › lidl..
  5. I am sorry that your father has fallen foul of the crooks that call themselves Parking Eye. My wife is disabled and we use Aldi click and collect at times so that my wife orders what she wants on line and I go to Aldi and pick it up without going in to the store. This gets round your Father having to get the wheelchair out of the car and putting it back later. Alternatively both Asda and Sainsbury do have some stores that have mobile wheelchairs instore which would eliminate getting the wheelchair in and out of the car plus it gives your Mother the freedom to move around the store on her own. In the meantime, dx100uk has asked that you fill in the form above which will help us fend off Parking Eye if Lidle should fail.
  6. Very good points by Andy . In addition the NTK is not compliant as the wording should not include that they can work on the assumption that the keeper is the driver. also they have omitted to say that they can transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper if they have not added the proviso "providing all the applicable conditions of the Schedule have been met". PoFA 8 &9 [2] [f]. Nor did they specify the waiting time of the car in the bus stop as they have to state the period of parking from a to b to even begin to comply with the provisions of PoFA Schedule 7 [2][a]. In any event you were not parking, merely stopping and even they they have not stated how long you stopped for. So another reason why they have not provided all the applivcable conditions of the Schedule . Include a copy of PoFA to the Court highlighting where VCS have gone wrong and familiarise yourself with those parts of the Act so that you can argue why you are right though if the Judge is sufficiently savvy it may not be necessary to argue those points. You should have any easy win but do not let VCS get away with mis-directing the Court. And keep asking for strict proof about things like the contract signatures [MUST be a director of peel group] strict proof of who was driving since it cannot be the keeper. Strict proof too of the bus stop coming under VCS jurisdiction. It's a shame that they do not need to prove that they are of sound mind since they would lose on that one so good luck .
  7. Send the SAR to UKPC. There is no point sending it to DCBL unless you do it in different coloured crayons and don't use any words with more than four letters in them. A single amoeba has more brain cells than all of them at DCBL.
  8. As the PCN does not comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 PCP cannot transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. So it is important that you do not divulge who was driving. It makes it far harder for PCP to get paid by the driver since they do not know the name and address of the driver as the Court does not assume that the driver and the keeper are necessarily the same person. It is better then not to appeal as that might lead to divulging the name of the driver especially as appeals are rarely granted. Just sit tight and say nothing unless you gat a letter of Claim from them. In which case please let us know and we will give you a suitably worded response. In the meantime you will receive letter from their unregulated debt collectors and solicitors all of which can be totally ignored unless you receive a letter of Claim.They will also add on spurious charges which you will not have to pay so don't worry about them.
  9. Their case was always weak with little chance of a win for them. As you didn't pay up they may well have decided that they were on a hiding to nothing. if the discontinuance is genuine then well done . Had you not put so much work into it you might have run the risk of losing in court under the Judge lottery situation. Plus you now know it is over much earlier than other motorists. You could also complain to the DVLA incompetents explaining that there was no reasonable cause since you had broken down and it happened on a Road subject to Bye Laws so was not relevant land thus a breach of your GDPR. Time and again VCS lose in Court because airport land is not relevant land so why does the DVLA not know abut their losses in Court. Hardly a robust system that they brag about.
  10. Instead of To Whom it may concern you could use something like Dear Ignoramuses. Then you would be correct to use Yours Sincerely at the end since we are all sincere in our beliefs that they are ignoramuses. You can be as rude as you want as their heads are as thick as their skin.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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".
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...