Parking Charge Notice - Vehicle Control Services...

[keepfighting1973]

Hi All - I found you via Martin Lewis Forum & have spent the last hour or so reading up on this subject - for background,

 

I have been to the football today & over the last 10 or so years I have parked in the same spot.

 

Its a private carpark in an industrial estate near the ground in leeds.

 

Many people park there on match days & never had any issues.

This morning I drove in, parked up & to be honest, I was half asleep.

I thought nothing of it, but when I got back to the car, all the cars left in there had stickers on the car.

£80 if paid within 7 days, with additional £40 if paid after.

 

As you can imagine, it took me by suprise.

 

On closer insepction, new signs had been put up since my last vist 2 weeks ago - some on the entrance gate - but with the gates been wide open, I didn't notice as I drove in.

Others dotted around the carpark.

The company is called Vehicle Control Services & I have 7 days to "Appeal" or "Challenge" in writing only.

The ticket says I was breaching section 94 - parking without a valid ticket or Permit. I was parked at 10am, with the ticket issued at 12.59.

 

So the advice given is to ignore & expect a few letters before the threat of legal action.

I was happy to try this, but read a thread on the net saying that they took someone to court.

 

There is no respone saying what the outcome was.

 

Any thoughts please?

[havinastella]

Ignore, Ignore and then just in case you didn't get it the first time, IGNORE!

 

It's an invoice, simple as that. They may well take you to court, but with a decent defence they will never win.

 

Oh, just in case you didn't get it, IGNORE!

 

Jogs

[diskmandave]

Ignore, Ignore and then just in case you didn't get it the first time, IGNORE!

 

It's an invoice, simple as that. They may well take you to court, but with a decent defence they will never win.

 

Oh, just in case you didn't get it, IGNORE!

 

Jogs

 

Just in case you don't get the picture.....

 

IGNORE!!!

[keepfighting1973]

I think what your trying to say is, I should ignore & I will - thank you!

 

But just incase:

 

"They may well take you to court, but with a decent defence they will never win."

 

- what class's as a decent defence~!?

[dx100uk]

Hi All - I found you via Martin Lewis Forum & have spent the last hour or so reading up on this subject - for background,

 

I have been to the football today & over the last 10 or so years I have parked in the same spot.

 

Its a private carpark in an industrial estate near the ground in leeds.

 

Many people park there on match days & never had any issues.

This morning I drove in, parked up & to be honest, I was half asleep.

I thought nothing of it, but when I got back to the car, all the cars left in there had stickers on the car.

£80 if paid within 7 days, with additional £40 if paid after.

 

As you can imagine, it took me by suprise.

 

On closer insepction, new signs had been put up since my last vist 2 weeks ago - some on the entrance gate - but with the gates been wide open, I didn't notice as I drove in.

Others dotted around the carpark.

The company is called Vehicle Control Services & I have 7 days to "Appeal" or "Challenge" in writing only.

The ticket says I was breaching section 94 - parking without a valid ticket or Permit. I was parked at 10am, with the ticket issued at 12.59.

 

So the advice given is to ignore & expect a few letters before the threat of legal action.

I was happy to try this, but read a thread on the net saying that they took someone to court.

 

There is no respone saying what the outcome was.

 

Any thoughts please?

 

the only PPC people that they have gotten in court have either been 'stooges' [family friends/relatives/employees/ put-up jobs] and one disabled guy they picked on who was too ill to attend court. - nice people!

 

this is how they 'gain' mugs to pay up

 

as advised

 

ignore!

 

dx

[BankFodder]

This is very interesting. I gather that this is private land and yet they have said that you are in contravention of section 94??? S.94 of what?

 

Please would you post a legible scan of the document you received.

 

There are rules as to how these companies present themselves and saying that you are in breach of some section or other could be a very serious breach of those rules.

 

Please will you let us see what you have received.

Thanks

[BankFodder]

In fact I have seen elsewhere on the forum a scan of a ticket issued by this company.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?123586-PCN-from-Vehicle-Control-Services-LTD

 

Is this what you received? It refers to contravention code 94, not section 94.

 

Personally I think that the get-up of this ticket is likely to cause confusion and to be seen by many as being a parking ticket which has been issued on the basis of some law or byelaw. If that is the case, then it has been issued in breach of the Code of Practice.

 

Anyway, the basis upon which they would want to say that you are bound to pay is that you have entered into a contract by using the carpark and by overstaying a certain period of time or by failing to buy a ticket, you have breached the contract and you are therefore subject to a penalty.

 

However it is a rule of contract law that penalties for breach of contract can only cover actual losses caused by your breach. It is scarcely likely to be the sum that they are asking.

 

There are very few case in which these companies will take anyone to court. Frankly I think that their business model is to make their money from people who just pay up without trouble.

In this case if they happened to take you to court, I would argue that it was an unenforceable penalty -and also I would raise the issue of whether the ticket breached the Code of Conduct. If the judge agreed that it did, then this would form the basis of a complaint to the OFT under CPUT as well as to the Trading Standards.

[danm]

Hi All,

 

I too came across this forum through Martin Lewis' website.

 

To cut a long story short, a parking ticket was issued to my car on Friday night for obstructive parking even though no obstruction occured. I recieved a parking ticket from a private firm who have charged their normal fee under the facade of a 'fixed penalty charge' ticket. Having sought legal advice it turns out that the private company has to retreive the sums of money as they are in 'contract' with the driver of the vehicle.

 

I am not going to appeal the case as that makes me liable for parking the vehicle, and my understanding is that it's up to the private parking company to determine and prove who the driver was and they have no powers to force me to reveal the identity of the driver as they are a private company, so i'm going to refuse to give them any information.

 

I just wanted a second opinion from anyone who has fought a charge like this, I was going to write a letter to them without my address details on it saying that they should take up the matter with the driver concerned, but I have been told that they could eventually send my case to solicitors a debt collection agency and eventually get a county court judgement issued against me. What I was hoping to find out is if they did send baliffs to my house from a debt collection agency, or if I get contacted by a debt collection agency can I tell them to stop bothering me as there is a dispute on the ticket and they have not been able to prove I was the driver? Would I have to let a baliff into the house should they send one round?

 

Would anyone do anything different in this course of action?

[BankFodder]

I don't think you need to worry too much. Read around the forum and you will soon see the familiar story and you will understand you r position.

Does the ticket you have received really describe itself as a penalty in the way you describe? If so, this may also be a breach of the code.

Please would you start anew thread and post a copy of the ticket yo received.

 

Sent from my phone

[dx100uk]

Hi All,

 

I too came across this forum through Martin Lewis' website.

 

To cut a long story short, a parking ticket was issued to my car on Friday night for obstructive parking even though no obstruction occured. I recieved a parking ticket from a private firm who have charged their normal fee under the facade of a 'fixed penalty charge' ticket. Having sought legal advice it turns out that the private company has to retreive the sums of money as they are in 'contract' with the driver of the vehicle.

 

I am not going to appeal the case as that makes me liable for parking the vehicle, and my understanding is that it's up to the private parking company to determine and prove who the driver was and they have no powers to force me to reveal the identity of the driver as they are a private company, so i'm going to refuse to give them any information.

 

I just wanted a second opinion from anyone who has fought a charge like this, I was going to write a letter to them without my address details on it saying that they should take up the matter with the driver concerned, but I have been told that they could eventually send my case to solicitors a debt collection agency and eventually get a county court judgement issued against me. What I was hoping to find out is if they did send baliffs to my house from a debt collection agency, or if I get contacted by a debt collection agency can I tell them to stop bothering me as there is a dispute on the ticket and they have not been able to prove I was the driver? Would I have to let a baliff into the house should they send one round?

 

Would anyone do anything different in this course of action?

 

sadly your post is oh too typical of being 'taken in' by the supposed 'legitimacy' of private parkign industry & thus, the 'spiders web' portrayed by the 'debt collection companies' too........

 

lets just blow one thing out the water first of all...

 

no debt collection agency has ANY LEGAL POWERS - they are NOT Bailiffs and will never be!

 

a bailiff would only come after you, IF they got you in court - IF they ever got a CCJ against you [read my others posts on this] & IF you failed to pay the CCJ.

 

ALL of which will never happen

 

do not ever reply to them in anyway shape or form

 

all PPC's produce are what the legal profession call 'speculative invoices'

 

they are speculating that they can catch a mug who will pay them because they do not know any better!

 

you now do

 

dx

[keepfighting1973]

Hello all

 

Just a quick update on this one...

 

So, I did more looking around on the web & felt a bit easier about the whole thing.

 

Now I have had my first "Notice to Owner" letter - quite strongly worded as expected. Its now for only an "alledged" breach of the car park's T&Cs, still citing the contravention being parkiing without displaying a valid ticket / permit.

 

It is clear that this is for the driver of the car at the time. It also asks me to confirm if I wasn't the driver, who the driver was.

 

The charge has risen to £120 with a possible extra £30 court fee & £50 Solicitor scale cost. if not paid within 14 days, they will commence action against the driver / owner for the unpaid charge.

 

Intrestingly, the letter states that there was an offer of a discounted charge of £60 if it was paid within 14 days of the original notice issue. The original ticket only stated it was £80 rising to £120 if not paid within 7 days?

 

On that note, this letter also states that they are a member of BPA - however the BPA guidlines suggest a £75 charge is the maximum they feel is reasonable to charge - this PCN was £5 over that - not much, but still over! Not sure if that matters or is relevant?

 

So - I assume I continue to ignore, but for clarity - when should i use the suggested letter templates given on this site?

 

Thanks everyone!

[dpick]

Hi the BPA members club all members are private parking companies, I have a small club anybody who reads this post is infringing my rules therefore you only £50. I bet you won't pay me.

 

Same rules apply to me as to BPA

 

Dpick

[DBC]

Yes, continue to ignore. As for the BPA, don't forget it's not a regulator, just an member's club for the parking "industry". On no account use the templates.. By not contacting them they have no way of ascertaining the identity of the driver.

[dpick]

Hi BPA something along the lines of British parking Association I think all their members private parking companies. I run a little club, one of my rules is if you read this post you have to pay a penalty of £50. I bet you will not pay me.

 

Same rules applied to the BPA as they do to me ignore.

 

Dpick

[ajjm]

I was asked to follow up a private parking ticket for someone in January and also got advice from this website. The key point seems to be that these outfits cannot get addresses for a registered keeper of a car from the DVLA and therefore have no way of tracking down the owner, never mind the driver. I followed the advice to ignore the ticket and the driver heard no more about it. I think this suggests these firms cannot find out where you live even if they wanted to send a bailiff (unless you have communicated with them and given them your address yourself). Good luck and don't worry about ignoring these scoundrels!!

[dx100uk]

THEY ARE NOT BAILIFFS

 

they only come AFTER its been to court - PPC dont do that on speculative invoices!

and you fail to pay a CCJ [which they will never get]

 

dx

[letshelp]

I was asked to follow up a private parking ticket for someone in January and also got advice from this website.

 

Good!

 

The key point seems to be that these outfits cannot get addresses for a registered keeper of a car from the DVLA and therefore have no way of tracking down the owner,

 

They can get the address of the registered keeper, but the DVLA DO NOT keep details of the owner.

never mind the driver.

 

Unless you suply the name and address olf the driver then it will for ever remain a secret!

I followed the advice to ignore the ticket and the driver heard no more about it. I think this suggests these firms cannot find out where you live even if they wanted to send a bailiff (unless you have communicated with them and given them your address yourself). Good luck and don't worry about ignoring these scoundrels!!

regards

[Cardiff Devil]

It's really encouraging that folks are starting to wise up to the PPC bullying tactics now. It's disgraceful that these companies can legally intimidate people into paying these joke invoices and make thousands of pounds from doing so. You can help by passing the word to as many people as possible that they don't have to pay these jokers.

 

There's a tiny little shopping precinct just opened by me, there's a Tesco Metro, Pizza Hut, Subway and KFC there with a few other little shops. The little car park has around 8 normal parking spaces and 4 disabled bays. Got there the other day and there was only a disabled space available, so parked there. Saw a fat git in a PPC uniform writing down my reg number but didn't have a $camvoice left on my car.

 

Hoping for some PPC correspondence in the near future.

[lamma]

Does this invoice show the VAT amount ? and the VAT number of VCS ?

[Coupon]

Does this invoice show the VAT amount ? and the VAT number of VCS ?

 

 

 

Very good point seeing as they have just been clouted by the taxman in a case which will no doubt have ramifications for any PPCs who thought their 'parking tickets' were VAT exempt (I think that will be all of them including the BPA, then!).

[keepfighting1973]

Hi All

 

Quick update - am still ignoring & we have swiftly moved on to a final demand notice.

 

Wording similar to the last letter, but more abrubt - Final demand prior to court action in big letters, but in tiny letters says -it should be noted that "the motorist" has 14 days to pay before they commence proceedings for the recovery of the unpaid charge.

 

Will update you if I get anything else!

 

PS - no mention of VAT anywhere

[keepfighting1973]

Hi all

 

Been a while, but another update & advice needed please

 

So, I have now been sent a debt collectors lettter requesting £162

 

The letter goes through the previous details & says it is in my own best interests to get in touch to resolve this debt without recourse to futher action. In 10 days, this matter will be passed on to their solicitors who will reveiw the case for potential legal action.

 

Now, this is the bit i need advice on & I am typing word for word:

 

We are fully aware if anecdotal information being presented via the internet and on various websites and you may feel this guidance worth following. We strongly urge you to see independant legal advice rather than rely on these opinions, and we would repectivley (think that should be respectfully) suggest that you refer to the Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17

 

There is a link to this on the bottom of the letter, but I cant post as not done 20 posts or more yet!

 

Any thoughts?

[keepfighting1973]

Just to add, this is what the letter refers to:

 

Disclosure before proceedings start

31.16

 

(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started

 

(2) The application must be supported by evidence.

 

(3) The court may make an order under this rule only where –

 

(a) the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;

 

(b) the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;

 

© if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and

 

(d) disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –

 

(i) dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;

 

(ii) assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or

 

(iii) save costs.

 

(4) An order under this rule must –

 

(a) specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

 

(b) require him, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –

 

(i) which are no longer in his control; or

 

(ii) in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.

 

(5) Such an order may –

 

(a) require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

 

(b) specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

 

 

Orders for disclosure against a person not a party

31.17

 

(1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure by a person who is not a party to the proceedings

 

(2) The application must be supported by evidence.

 

(3) The court may make an order under this rule only where –

 

(a) the documents of which disclosure is sought are likely to support the case of the applicant or adversely affect the case of one of the other parties to the proceedings; and

 

(b) disclosure is necessary in order to dispose fairly of the claim or to save costs.

 

(4) An order under this rule must –

 

(a) specify the documents or the classes of documents which the respondent must disclose; and

 

(b) require the respondent, when making disclosure, to specify any of those documents –

 

(i) which are no longer in his control; or

 

(ii) in respect of which he claims a right or duty to withhold inspection.

 

(5) Such an order may –

 

(a) require the respondent to indicate what has happened to any documents which are no longer in his control; and

 

(b) specify the time and place for disclosure and inspection.

[crem]

They always forget to mention that civil procedures rule 31 doesn't apply to the fast track small claims court. I wonder why that is!!

[DBC]

They forgot to add one small but important point - "Civil Procedure Rules part 31*, and more specifically parts 31.16 and 31.17" does not apply to the Small Claims track. So a load of nonsense on their part.