Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

VCS ANPR PCN - overstay of paid 1hrs ticket - St Marys gate Retail Car Park Sheffield


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 723 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

:mad2: I'm livid - today we have received a £100!!!!! 'charge' for parking 'longer than the maximum period permitted' (which is 60mins) on the 9th Feb 2019.

 

We went to see an evening performance at Theatre Deli and parked in the carpark directly outside the theatre, which is on a small retail park (it used to be a carpet shop). A theatre performance is obviously going to last more than an hour, and as there were no pay machines we presumed it was free to park (especially on an evening).

 

The notice is dated 21.2.19, the envelope does not have a post mark. The PCN is from VCS Ltd who are members of IPC.

 

Happy to provide more info if needed.

 

Please help me sort this as quickly and easily as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement - 9/2/19

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 21/2/19

 

3 Date received - 25/2/19

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] - No

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? - Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] - No

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up - n/a

 

7 Who is the parking company? - VCS Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - St Mary's Gate Retail Car Park, Sheffield, S1 4QZ

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.- IAS

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here - none so far

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are out of time the 14 days have expired.

 

plenty of thread here on this Car park already.

 

pers i'd ignore everything until or unless you get a 'letter of/before claim' from one of their favourite paper only fake/tame solicitors.

 

scan up both sides of the NTK to ONE multipage PDF.

read upload

 

I think you will find by reviewing other threads here that the permitted time on the planning permission will be 2 or 3 hours so is well in excess of 60 mins and no speculative invoice provider can change that.

 

have a read here:

https://cse.google.co.uk/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:6449422593&ie=UTF-8&q=St+Marys+gate+Retail+Car+Park+Sheffield+&sa=Search+CAG

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on another thread, is this a good idea? If so, who do i address it to? the appeals?

....

If this was a NTK received after 14 days then perhaps:

 

Sirs

 

Ref PCN xxxxx VRM yyyyyy

 

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and am in receipt of the PCN you issued. I have no liability on this matter as you have failed to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to deliver the notice within the prescribed relevant period of 14 days, contrary to section 9 (4) of the Act. You cannot therefore transfer liability from the driver at the time to me.

 

There is no legal requirement to identify the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

 

Any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records, will be considered vexatious and harassment. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct.

 

Yours etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll be wasting your time with that because VCS know fine well that they have failed to meet POFA requirements, that's why they don't mention it because otherwise they would. All they'll do is reply saying something to the effect of "tough, we'll assume you're driving then" (they can't but they hope people cave in and pay). Ignore them and their silly debt collector letters until you get a LBA in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeqal is a waste of time wait for LBA then one of Ericsbrother's acidic letters should send them back under their rock.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread title updated

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

NTK please

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...