VCS PCN Markham retail park chesterfield for walking off the premises

[stevo_gti]

I last came to this forum 7 year ago and got some great advice... unfortunately in now back for more.

 

the back end of last year (19/11/2016) I received a PCN from Vehicle Parking Services LTD.

it was in chesterfield at the Markham retail park SCS store,

my partner works at Next across in the other car park (Ravenside retail park) and I had gone to collect her from work

 

 

walked over to meet her (it was Christmas and I couldn't park near the store)

on returning to the car to put some bags in the boot

I had a PCN stuck to my window that stated I had walked off the premises,

 

 

this was true but it was for 15min and we was going to the JYSK store where I had parked to buy my daughter a new bed, unfortunately they only had the display model that was battered so didn't buy anything so no proof of purchase.

 

I ignored the ticket as advised 7 year ago,

I then got a letter on 06/02/2017 from Debt Recovery Plus on behalf of their client asking I pay the £160 by 20/2/2017..

.I also ignored this.

 

I then received another letter from DRP (21/02/2017) for notice of intended court action if I don't pay the £160 7/3/2016.

...yes I ignored this one also.

 

I then received a third letter from DRP on 08/03/2017 for a final settlement offer of £136 to avoid court action which needs to be paid by 22/03/2017.

 

I'm current trying to get my plumbing business running and worried they will take me to court so I don't need a court judgment hanging over me

 

 

should I pay the fine and have it done with?

 

can anyone please give me some advice on what I now need to do and if I should settle this outside of the courts?

 

 

I cant upload any pictures right now as photo bucket doesn't seem to be working so will add them tomorrow.

 

 

thanks for any help.

[FTMDave]

Firstly, it's not a fine, only the police, local councils, etc. have the power to fine. Secondly, if you did go to court, it would be a civil, not criminal court, where you would have ample chance to defend yourself in relatively informal surroundings. Thirdly, it seems a bit strange that DRP give you 500,000 chances to pay, rather than, er, VCS actually taking you to court: seems like they aren't so confident about winning in court!

 

Others more knowledgeable than me will be on in the morning.

[dx100uk]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

please fill this out

[dx100uk]

yes you can safely totally ignore DR+

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF

they have NO LEGAL POWERS WHATSOEVER

only the OWNER of the land can take you to court

or

a parking company holding a signed agreement to prosecute parkers on behalf of the OWNER OF THE LAND.

 

however

walking OFF where you parked is solely a trespass issue .

so no hope of that!!

 

continue to ignore

 

just don't ignore a claimform

 

IF IF IF one comes

which will be EASY to defeat..

 

there have been NO successful walking off CCJ's where they have been defended.

 

dx

[Oddfellow]

So you aren't allowed to browse in a store without getting a parking ticket?

You need to be contacting the management at JYSK to inform them of this, and tell them you will give them an opportunity to get VCS to withdraw the invoice before going to the local press and social media about your case.

 

While I wouldn't contradict DX's advice to ignore DR+,

it may be useful simply to send a LETTER (no emails or phone calls) to VCS telling them that they have no cause for action against you, and that any future communication from them or their agents will be regarded as harassment.

 

 

The reason I say this is that there have been a couple of cases reported recently in which the defendant was criticized by the judge for not making any attempt to contact the claimant to deny the claim, and had acted unreasonably.

 

Others may have a different view (or tell you how to word the letter better). Stick around.

[dx100uk]

you do that when the BW legal letter comes

not at the DCA stage.

[ericsbrother]

there was a court case concerning VCS and a claim for breach of contract for someone walking off the premises.

VCS lost big time.

 

They know that if you know their claim is garbage then they will not pursue it to court but it is a waste of time writing to a dca as they just get paid £15 to write 3 scary letters and hope that you pay up the inflated amout they demand

(note the original demand was probably £60/100 but they ask for £160 or so- ask yourself why this is)

so they make a profit at the end of it as the letter writing is a loss leader.

 

If you get a letter from a solicitor such as BWL or Gladstones, maybe SCS or Miah's come back here pronto and we will compose a letter to let them know that you arent going to be mugged by them.

[stevo_gti]

sorry will fill it out now.

 

unfortunately the ticket was for parking in the carpark then walking across the road to meet my partner from work before going back across the road to JYSK

 

I just wasn't sure if I should keep ignoring them as ive seen on a few google searches that the laws may have changed and can now be taken to court and won?

[stevo_gti]

1 The date of infringement - 19/11/16

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? - No

 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? - No

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) - Yes

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company - Vehicle Control ervices LTD

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Markham Retail Park - Chesterfield

 

[/url]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

pictures removed

you MUST redact ref numbers!!

 

pop all those into ONE multipage pdf and attach please

follow the upload

[ericsbrother]

If you google VCS v Ibbotson you will see that this supposed breach is utter tripe and they know it as they were at the receiving end of the judgement.

 

 

This doesnt stop these bandits trying it on again though but you must recognise that this is a long haul, not a short hop.

 

DR+ have nothing to do with anything-you should learn about dca's and then you will not be worried by their drivel.

 

The next stage will be a threatogram from a solicitors like BWLegal,

 

 

you must respond to them as that not only lets themknow you arent a mug but it creates a paper trail that wil show their unreasonableness considering there aint such a breach as being seen.

[DragonFly1967]

The important part (in your case) of the Ibbotson judgement, is that it is the claimants (VCS) responsibility to mitigate the loss (both to themselves and (if applicable) to their client).

 

If there was someone from VCS on site (and there must have been to issue the driver the NTD/PCN), the Ibbotson judgement makes it clear that part of their duty is to mitigate losses.

 

 

This would mean that it is the attendants duty to inform anyone leaving the premises that they would be breaching any (supposed) terms and conditions in their (supposed) contract to "Manage" the car park, and that by leaving the premises, they would be issued with a NTD/PCN).

 

If their on site attendant did not do this in this case,

then VCS (by way of their authorised member of staff (the car park attendant)) have failed in their duty to mitigate their losses, and therefore have only themselves to blame for the (supposed) breach of any of their (supposed) terms and conditions in their (supposed) contract with the landowner*.

 

*In case no one else has already mentioned it, any contract that VCS have made to "Manage" the car park MUST be made between VCS and the landowner in order for VCS to issue charges, make claims and take people to court in their own name.

 

 

If their 'contract' is with a Managing Agent, they're all but sunk as they'd have no rights in law to issue charges or pursue claims in their own right as only the landowner can assign those rights to a third party.

 

 

Even if the landowners Managing Agent had those rights, they would not have the right to assign them to A.N.Other.

[ericsbrother]

If you have or can take pictures of the signage that would be useful

 

Usually the wording is too vague to make the "driver seen leaving the site" claim a breach anyway,

 

they usually just say somehting like parking for customers only and I have never seen one saying

"if you do not stay rooted to this spot for the entire duration of your stay you owe us £100"

 

and that essentially is the level required to make any claim stick and even then you have to consider this

and that doesnt force you to remain there to consider and then reject that offer.

 

you may well have left to go and consult your solicitor

- a quite reasonable thing to do under the circumstances considering the rubbish wording of the contract and its various interpretations.

[Oddfellow]

Just read the transcript of VCS v Ibbotson (2012), and some of the speech used by DJ McIlwaine is absolutely ****ing superb!

 

Telling the claimant's legal representative that if they haven't set aside all such similar cases founded on the same contract by 4pm Friday, they will be appearing before him again, and they had "better bring a toothbrush. Do I make myself clear?"

 

On the basis of judgements like that, HOW on earth are so many claims still being brought before the court and winning?! And how are VCS still operating?

 

Sadly for the OP, it wasn't found on the alleged breach of contract for walking off the premises, but for the lack of a contract between VCS and Wickes to bring cases in their own name.

 

 

The key, as DF says, is that VCS was identified as having failed to mitigate their losses by the parking attendant not having a word with Mr Ibbotson. THAT is your defence, unless you can get hold of a similarly hopeless contract for this site.

[stevo_gti]

i received a new letter yesterday from Zenith Collections for a notice of debt recovery assignment, this states that VCS has passed the responsibility of the outstanding £160 over to ZC. It says in block capitals "IT IS OUR INTENTION TO COLLECT THIS DEBT AND PERSUE TO A LEGAL CONCLUSION IF NECESSARY"

 

I now have 14 days to pay a reduced sum of £79.99 to avoid possible necessity and expense of court action, this will be the only offer made at reduced amount and after 14 days it will revert back to the full amount of £160.

 

what do you guys think I should do now?

I'm honestly thinking of paying it and having it done with but I also don't want to line their pockets if its not legit.

 

The important part (in your case) of the Ibbotson judgement, is that it is the claimants (VCS) responsibility to mitigate the loss (both to themselves and (if applicable) to their client).

 

If there was someone from VCS on site (and there must have been to issue the driver the NTD/PCN), the Ibbotson judgement makes it clear that part of their duty is to mitigate losses.

 

This would mean that it is the attendants duty to inform anyone leaving the premises that they would be breaching any (supposed) terms and conditions in their (supposed) contract to "Manage" the car park, and that by leaving the premises, they would be issued with a NTD/PCN).

 

If their on site attendant did not do this in this case,

then VCS (by way of their authorised member of staff (the car park attendant)) have failed in their duty to mitigate their losses, and therefore have only themselves to blame for the (supposed) breach of any of their (supposed) terms and conditions in their (supposed) contract with the landowner*.

 

*In case no one else has already mentioned it, any contract that VCS have made to "Manage" the car park MUST be made between VCS and the landowner in order for VCS to issue charges, make claims and take people to court in their own name.

 

If their 'contract' is with a Managing Agent, they're all but sunk as they'd have no rights in law to issue charges or pursue claims in their own right as only the landowner can assign those rights to a third party.

 

Even if the landowners Managing Agent had those rights, they would not have the right to assign them to A.N.Other.

 

yes there was an attendant on site when I returned to the car as he was parked a few bays up from me and also saw us go into JYSK (I did think about talking to him but I was advised against it by my partner) however I didn't see him parked up when I arrived so not sure where he was hiding.

 

If you have or can take pictures of the signage that would be useful

 

Usually the wording is too vague to make the "driver seen leaving the site" claim a breach anyway,

 

they usually just say somehting like parking for customers only and I have never seen one saying

"if you do not stay rooted to this spot for the entire duration of your stay you owe us £100"

 

and that essentially is the level required to make any claim stick and even then you have to consider this

and that doesnt force you to remain there to consider and then reject that offer.

 

you may well have left to go and consult your solicitor

- a quite reasonable thing to do under the circumstances considering the rubbish wording of the contract and its various interpretations.

 

I will get my partner to take pictures of the signs tomorrow when she goes to work.

[dx100uk]

you ignore the no powers DCA they ARE NOT BAILIFFS.

 

 

letter doesn't say will anything

and THEY cant do court

only the owners

[honeybee13]

I agree with dx. If Zenith are writing, the end of this is approaching. They can't take you to court themselves and will just try scary letters.

 

Have a read of Zenith threads here, you can do a search in the box at the top of this screen, in the Maroon strip.

 

HB

[ericsbrother]

Zenith get paid to write letters, that is all they can do so ignore them.

This is plastered all over about a million other threads regarding dca's so why do you think that yours is any different from the others? You cannot just rely on advice given on your thread, you have to do some homework for yourself.

Anyway, you have already been told about dca's when you posted regarding DR+ so I cant believe that you need to ask again.

[stevo_gti]

you ignore the no powers DCA they ARE NOT BAILIFFS.

 

 

letter doesn't say will anything

and THEY cant do court

only the owners

 

I agree with dx. If Zenith are writing, the end of this is approaching. They can't take you to court themselves and will just try scary letters.

 

Have a read of Zenith threads here, you can do a search in the box at the top of this screen, in the Maroon strip.

 

HB

 

 

Thanks for the reply's, guess I will just ride it out a little longer then and hope they get the message.

[stevo_gti]

Zenith get paid to write letters, that is all they can do so ignore them.

This is plastered all over about a million other threads regarding dca's so why do you think that yours is any different from the others? You cannot just rely on advice given on your thread, you have to do some homework for yourself.

Anyway, you have already been told about dca's when you posted regarding DR+ so I cant believe that you need to ask again.

 

I am trying to do my own research into this matter but between working, looking after my two daughters and trying to get my own business off the ground I don't have much spare time right now plus I'm not really knowledgeable on these kind of things so when i search google I find contradicting information and start to doubt myself, but once I've looked at threads on here it puts me back at ease.

 

I just don't want to end up with any CCJ's or any bad credit ratings against me that could stop me opening accounts with the merchants I need, and wasn't sure if ZC were the same crooks as DR+ hence asking again before I searched them properly when I had time.

 

sorry if i keep repeating myself or asking simple/stupid questions, I value everyone's opinions on here and appreciate everyone's reply's.

[DragonFly1967]

Don't worry about a CCJ at this point. Even if you lose at court (which is unlikely as long as the matter is properly defended), you don't automatically get a CCJ unless you don't pay the judgement (14 days if memory serves). This presumes that VCS are daft enough to try and take you to court in the first place.

 

Zeneth and DR+ are separate entities but they're forged in the same mould. Neither have any power to actually do anything apart from write you scary (and increasingly desperate) letters, sometimes they even use red ink or to make them really frightening, CAPITAL LETTERS IN RED INK!

 

You'll notice a common theme in all of their letters (from either DCA), the words "may", "might", "recommend to our clients" etc. None of the letters will ever say that they "will" do X, Y or Z. Mainly because they can't!

[dx100uk]

stop using google or any search engine.

 

use the search CAG box of our red toolbar.

 

it cant go on your credit rating

and a CCJ is a VERY remote possibility.

 

if you get a letter from BW legal then let us know

apart from that

you ONLY research you need o do is GO BACK AND READ YOUR THREAD FROM THE TOP.

dx

[ericsbrother]

Read a large number of threads here on the private parking forum and you will se the advice has a very strong theme.

 

You can read about dca's in the debt forum as well,

there are thousnads of threads about them and they all say the same-IGNORE THEM, they have no powers whatsoever.

 

Why dont you seach the FCA register and see if they are licenced to take deposits?

None of therm are so if you do pay them you havent actually paid the debt (not that it is real) should they do a runner qwith the money. Yes, they are that bad

[Oddfellow]

CCJs are generally only an issue if they get a default judgment against people who have stuck their heads in the sand and ignored court papers, or by "accidentally" using the wrong address for the defendant. Even if you lose in court (which is unlikely given other cases similar to yours), if you pay what the court tells you to within the required time, you won't get a CCJ nor will it affect your credit rating.

[stevo_gti]

I'm back again, I had no letters or contact about this PCN for a few month

 

on the 25th October I had a letter from BW legal drop on the carpet.

 

the letter says my account has been passed to the legal team,

contains all my details and gives me 16 days from the letter date (25/10/2017) which is today to pay the outstanding balance of £160.

 

if I fail to do this or contact them with reason for non payment they will seek the clients instructions for legal proceedings against me in form of a county court claim form in the county court.

 

I'm now worried as i've had a lot going on over the last month and completely forgot about this letter (again!)

 

I've been reading a thread on here from august this year about BW taking the user to court and winning that i'll be in the same boat as I'm too busy to try and defend it or research on how to actually defend it successfully.

 

any of you knowledgeable lot able to advise me on what I can do or is it best to just suck it up and pay the charges?