VCS ANPR PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield, S11 8PN

[sh3ffield]

Hello all,

I recently recieved a PCN form a car park I've been using for 8 years and has always had 2 hr free parking.

This must have changed between November 2018 and march 2019 as when i last used the car park i received a PCN for staying 16 minutes past the hour.

 

On review there were new parking signs but no advertisement of the change.

I didnt think to look at the parking signs as I use the car park three times a year and never think to check.

 

I appealed on the basis of this and had my appeal turned down.

 

Hope you can help

 

ANPR

 

1. Date of the infringement 13/03/19

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]: 20/03/19

 

3 Date received: 26/03/19

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]: N

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?: Y

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]: Y

 

appealed online as per the above. I was a regular user of the car park and didnt think to check the tariff signs as they had always been 2hr free parking. There was no notice of the change in terms

 

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

 

7 Who is the parking company?: Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]: Berkeley Centre Pay and Display, Sheffield, S11 8PN

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

This sounds like a private parking ticket so I've moved you to that forum. People should be along later to advise.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Welcome to the Forum.

You weren't to know but trying to get a ticket quashed from any of the majority of parking companies early on is virtually destined to fail. Plus if you identify as yourself as the driver you lose a major protection from POFA.

 

These days the best procedure is to ignore them all unless they send you a letter before claim.

these companies only take a small percentage of people to Court so it best to ignore them.

Also it gives you time to check the legality of their demand and that they have complied with all the requirements necessary for them to win in Court. Very rarely do they manage it.

 

The worst thing to do is to appeal straight away without knowing the full extent of how poor their speculative invoice demand is and the possibility that they have been able to form a contract between you and them.

 

To find out whether their chances of winning in Court rise to anything like 10% we need to see photos of their signage in the car park and those photos need to be in pdf form so that we can enlarge them unlike the NTK you posted.

 

There are often glaring mistakes on the NTK but they are barely legible on yours at the moment.

The signs we are looking for are at the entrance, on the ticket machine if there is one and the other signs around the car park especially when the ones that are different from the others.

 

The other thing to check is to check out online or direct with the local Council to see if they have planning permission to erect their signs and cctv cameras. This is a legal requirement under the Town and Country planning [advertisements] regulations.

 

Once you are fully aware of just how bad VCS are at getting things right you will realise that you can safely ignore them.

Not realising that the fact they have changed the length of time that motorists can stay would ever lead to them cancelling your ticket when the reason for the change was probably that they weren't robbing enough motorists blind with the old 2 hour limit.

 

In any event, assuming that they do have Council permission [which is often unlikely] Councils usually stipulate 3 hours so they cannot arbitrarily alter it to make more money for themselves.

 

In addition under the Code of Conduct that IAS have to comply with is that cars are allowed a minimum of ten minutes extra time to allow motorists to read the signs, find a place to park, then later pack their purchases in the car, return the trolley and make their way out. In fact BPA the other parking association allow 20 minutes for all that so it would not be unreasonable for a Judge to take that as the benchmark for IAS too.

 

So just ignore them.

They are totally dishonest and disreputable and not worth wasting a stamp or time on them. 

 

Because you have appealed they have a greater expectancy that you will now pay their ridiculous demand so they will try to frighten you with threats of Court and by the use of unregulated debt collectors demanding 160 pounds for goodness knows what reason.

 

When you keep ignoring them they change tack and send begging letters and dropping the amount you need to pay.

The truth is you owe them nothing so just post up the signs, redo the NTK and check with the Council and relax.

 

We will give you any advice you need

[dx100uk]

welcome

sorry but had to remove you pictures as not only does it make zooming a problem, but you'd left pers info showing on atleast one of them.

 

if you could read upload

and put them ALL in ONE multipage PDF, inc both sides of the NTK that would be better.

 

dx

 

[sh3ffield]

Many thanks both, I've redone the forms and attached photos of the signs. Unfortunately I didn't photo the terms clearly but the company on the signs is different to the one trying to bill me. Can I ignore on that basis?

sheffield parkingopt.pdf Berkeley_signs.pdf

[ericsbrother]

you are right, the NTK is from VCS and the signage belongs to Excel parking.

Both are companies owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith ( hereafter referred to as simple simon) but they are not one and the same so you owe nothing as they have failed to create a liability under the POFA or accountingh law as it applies in the UK (and the rest of the world)

 

So, what to do? Ignore them and any dca they employ to send scary letters adn the  respond in a forthright manner to thier letter before action or letter before claim. That is some months away so just keep us informed of what threatograms you receive until that point.

 

BTW, the signage isnt a contract anyway so even if they remembered who they were there would be no breach of contract to chase you for and they will lose a court claim in that regard.

[sh3ffield]

Thanks ericsbrother and will do. Much appreciated

Edited April 11, 2019 by sh3ffield

[Legggy]

Hi, Ditto, identical situation to mine, Excel sign, VCS invoice. 

I have not appealed so what would be the best course of action for me? 

 

Apologies in advance if I am asking in the wrong place but should I post my pics here also as they are pretty much identical or just await this thread to be updated? 

[dx100uk]

please keep to your own thread.

 

don't appeal no.

until / unless you get a letter of claim from one of their fake/tame paperwork only solicitor you SIT ON YOUR HANDS both of you

AS TOLD ABOVE by EB!!

[Legggy]

Thanks, will do, much appreciated! 

[sh3ffield]

Hello all, my first demand for payment has arrived. I'm assuming I ignore until I get the court summons as per the advice above. Thanks

VCS demand 20190509opt.pdf

[dx100uk]

as post 9 to leggy

[ericsbrother]

note that if you look up the bit of the BEAVIS decision they have quoted you will find that it doesnt say that at all, it says as long as they are NOT extravagant and unconscionable and that £80 was the figure quoted.

 

Perhaps VCS are now above the supreme court in legal circles but the govt have just failed to tell anyone this before.

 

as for the added unicorn food tax,

well they have decided that you were the driver at the time otherwise they cnat add this and that will damage their claim if they do try court as you can put it to strict proof they are chasing the right person cos they dont word their NTK's correctly

 

bugger, I forgot, you threw that protection away by appealing

[sh3ffield]

Thanks, it was a work car and I didn't want my company dragged into this dispute and risking our credit rating, so I felt I had no option but to own up to being the driver.

[ericsbrother]

no problem with that as company car, better to take it on rather than let employer pay up when they dont have to.

 

As Simple Simon cant remember who ihe pretending to be today do not reply yet, in truth it would be better if it gets as far as a court claim then you have a perfect defence regarding their lack of locus standi but we will suggest a suitable response once it gets beyond the usual DR+ threatograms demanding £160

[sh3ffield]

As an update, here's the latest and apparently final demand. I'll let you know when the court summons appears.

parking final demand 03_06_19.pdf

[ericsbrother]

and guess what, it is £160.

Ask yourself where they got that figure from as it wasnt on the NTK and the POFA limits tHe amount that can be claimed from the keeper to the amount on the original invoice.

 

This is one of the reasons we say dont contact them at the outset but let them make all the mistakes.

Expect threatograms form DR+ now

[sh3ffield]

Thanks. They say in the first demand that the costs are £100 charge and £60 debt recovery, presumably that gives them a little leeway,

[ericsbrother]

no, the law doesnt allow it but they rely on ignorance to collect money that isnt due (on top of the dubious demand that 95% of the time is duff)

dont presume anything, check

[sh3ffield]

Thanks - good advice!

[sh3ffield]

As another update I've got my letter before claim now. I take it I still do nothing. Thanks

parking_letter_before_claim_opt.pdf

[dx100uk]

no as post 9 to leggy.

[ericsbrother]

so now you need to respond to this letter.

A sensible response is: Address letter to Simon Renshaw-Smith at the VCS office in Sheffield

Dear Simple Simon,

I am in receipt of your LBA but fail to see what the cause for action by VCS is against me as the parking at the site and thus any contractual offer and consideration is with a different company that according to Companies House has no relationship with VCS.

As there is no cause for action this makes me wonder what reason was given to the DVLA for the aceesssing of my personal data and so invite you to drop this ridiculous claim  before you spend even more of your money on this by way of settlement of  a counterclaim as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

In short you let them know that they have been rumbled but without being polite, pleases and thank yous are not part of their make up.

[sh3ffield]

Thanks both - you've all been very helpful

[sh3ffield]

Hello all, unfortunately the letter didn't seem to work and I now have a court claim to appeal. Any advice gratefully received.

 

Thanks