VCS in Sheffield citing CPS vs Stephen J Thomas will they take me to court?

[Mr Evans]

Hi all,

 

I received an invoice from VCS in ****** on the **** of October as a car that I am the registered keeper for was parked in one of their car parks without a permit.

 

I have followed advice found on this forum and have not accepted any responsibility, they have now sent me two actual written letters and state (abridged):

 

We acknowledge your statement that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle in question however you were not the driver on the **** of October 2008 when the contravention was committed.

 

In reference to your comments regarding the identity of the driver of the vehicle. whilst we appreciate any research you may have conducted on this matter, we must question the reliability of this information. There has been a distinct increase in motorists relying on information adverised on consumer advise [sic] forums. Such advise [sic] involves registered keepers attempting to avoid liability by denying they were the driver or purporting to not know who the driver was at the time the contravention was committed.

 

A precedent was recently set in the case of Combine Parking Solutions v. Mr Stephen J Thomas (2008), whereby the increased use of consumer advise forums and the various issues it raises was recognised. As well as criticising those using such internet forums as "disingenuous", District Judge Ackroyd ruled that the identity of the driver will be proved based on the balance of probabilities.

 

... As per the pre-action protocols you are called on to act in a manner which facilitates the successful resolution of a dispute or claim. In the event you act in a manner intended to stall or confuse the process this shall counter against your position during court proceedings.

 

We have enough evidence to warrant the pursuit of the debt with yourself. Should this matter proceed to the County Courts then you will be required to provide a statement of truth as to whether you were the driver or not. Providing false information in a court of law would be committing an act of perjury.

 

We maintain that as the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX, it falls within your responsibility to be aware of who is in control of your vehicle at said time. Unfortunately, any assertions that you are unaware who the driver was cannot satisfy our request and runs contrary to the Pre-Action Protocols that you make reasonable enquiries to aid the other party in an action.

Now they wanted £120 (originally £80) by 26th Nov when they sent that, I didn't actually see the letter until recently, they sent another that asks for the money by January 6th or it 'could result in the issue of court proceedings', and included a photocopy of the letter quoted above.

 

Any advice will be greatly appreciated, I would genuinely have difficulty paying them as I'm a student and don't really have any money. I also don't want to go to court... perhaps I should offer them x amount a month or to settle at £80 or something. What happens if I lose in court and then don't pay anyway?

 

Thanks for any help

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr Evans

[Shovel]

This is really quite amusing. What you have received is a template letter which has been circulated by an acquaintance of ours in PPC circles.

 

It's identical to ones we have already seen from such companies as Excel, and has been concocted to enable PPCs to stretch out the trail of bogroll they send a little bit longer before they give up and move on.

 

Do a search of this forum with some of the text from it and you will see it's come up before.

 

Absolutely nothing to worry about. In any case, VCS are never going to take you to court. Continue to ignore.

[lamma]

Precedent - in small claims court ? ? ? Buffoons. Ignore these Perky clones. Their final paragraph is also a prime example of buffoonery. Cross your fingers they do take you to small claims - the judge will just love them !

[gwc1000]

Hi, Mr Evans. Sorry to sound suspicious but the wording of the letter you have put in your post hasn't been typed in by yourself, but has been lifted from elsewhere. May I ask why?

[Shovel]

Dear VCS

 

I note your use of a template letter, which is found on internet forums such as the Private Parking Companies Forum.

 

I must inform you that no precedent can be set in a Small Claims Case, and your assertion that this is the case constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact.

 

Should you be foolish enough to issue a court claim, I shall await a Judges appraisal of these statements - as well as your paperwork purporting to be of an official nature - with great earnest.

[Mr Evans]

Hi, Mr Evans. Sorry to sound suspicious but the wording of the letter you have put in your post hasn't been typed in by yourself, but has been lifted from elsewhere. May I ask why?

 

I did type it in myself. I used [ quote ] tags to show that it was quoted text...

 

That looks good Shovel... so you think I should fire another letter off to them or just completely ignore them now?

[lamma]

Its just pure Perky drivel. I would ignore it, not worth the price of a postage stamp.

[Barsteward]

Looks remarkably like the ones Excel are currently sending, well, they are same company. I notice yours made no reference to the RTA (1991) as the excel ones do.

[gwc1000]

I did type it in myself. I used [ quote ] tags to show that it was quoted text...

 

Ok,sorry. When a new poster comes here mentioning CPS (aka perky) I get suspicious. CPS often post here themselves pseudonymously to cause mischief.

As the others have said, ignore.

[labrat]

removed sorry

Edited January 2, 2009 by labrat
decided previous advice was better