VCS ANPR 2015 PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield S11 8PN ***Claim Discontinued***

[anniebattlemum]

The PCN says the date of the contravention was 12/08/2015 and the issue date of the notice it says was 25/08/2015, so 13 days later apparently. I don't know when she received it, but looks like they say they met the 14 days with the PCN issue date. Do you still need to see it or the other revised documents with the barcodes removed?

 

Yes the AOS was done online. My daughter was then convinced she'd done it too early and she only had 14 days to submit her defence from the date she did the AOS, but I understand it's still 28 days from the date of the claim.

 

The CPR went off on 6th July.

 

I understood that the registered keeper can now be held liable, whether driver or not?

[dx100uk]

COULD is the word here...not CAN or IS

 

its 33 days whereby the date on the claimform is ONE in the count but if that day is a w/end you file by 4pm on the Friday.

 

NTK sounds ok then.

 

might be better if you add that NTK to the revised scans and upload later 

i'll go kill the PDF today

we dont want them having the headsup. its you/her here

[anniebattlemum]

Thank you so much for your support. It really helps to ease the stress when someone's 'rooting' for you! Here's the PCN.

 

PCN revised.pdf

 

I hope we've dealt with everything in these revised attachments!

 

Final version of claim.pdf

[ericsbrother]

the registered keeper can be liable IF certain conditions are met and IPC members like VCS dont even try to get it right, they just tell lies later on to make up for it.

You dont admit being the driver and that may be enough to win if the judge is a stickler for the letter of the law. most know about the POFA but you still need to show that you are relying on it and what part and why

[anniebattlemum]

Right. I was just reading about the Protection of Freedoms Act in that regard. The driver is certainly not identifiable in the pictures taken and she hasn't identified herself as the driver, but presumably they have her keeper details from the DVLA. There was no separate NTK. This is all we have. 

[ericsbrother]

the keeper and driver are not legally the same person.

They have a contract with the driver and only the driver but they can create a keeper liabilty if they cant identify the driver (nothing to do with blurry pictures if is about admission of liability by someone)  but DO follow the procedure.

 

they havent followed the procedure and their court claim purposely tries to conflate the driver to keeper and vice versa.

Dont fall for it and NEVER presume anything, rely only on facts

 

If your daughter was caught on camera with a sign saying I am the keeper that isnt good enough to identify the driver as they still have to contact the DVLA for the data as they dont know the names of 65 million people or what they look like, let alone where they live. Even then the driver may be trying to mislead the parking co.

 

At my local supermarket I drive in the exit and out of the entrance to fool the cameras and it works!

[anniebattlemum]

Haha love it!

That's great - I thought there might be a loophole there somewhere that we could use in our defence. I guess I need to study the 'POFA' for more facts. 

 

I have not been able to establish who the landowner is, only the estate agent who is managing the site, I imagine each retailer leases their bit of the site from the landowner.

 

I wanted to see from the contract whether the landowner has given VCS the right to charge for overstaying, but I'm sure they won't send me a copy of the contract that was in being in 2015.

 

The main retailer is Tescos - they occupy most of the site - and, as they have a policy of 2 warnings, 3 strikes and only then take action - I wondered whether it was worth approaching them for support. I doubt they would want to risk losing customers due to unreasonable parking demands and any resulting bad publicity.

 

Would the correct procedure have been to request the name of the driver from the keeper? As it is, would I be right in thinking that there can be no contract if the driver has not been identified?

[dx100uk]

they do on the PCN - bottom of the  scan in your post a few up.

 

dx

 

 

 

[anniebattlemum]

So it doesn't matter they didn't issue a NTK? We can't use FOPA Section 4 for the defence then?

[dx100uk]

There is no ntk with anpr speculative invoices

[anniebattlemum]

Bank goes that slam dunk defence! OK thanks. Back to the drawing board.

[dx100uk]

makes no odds

defence is not due for weeks yet [25th by 4pm]

 

100's of anpr pcn claimform threads here with the 2 or 3 line std defence we always file.

 

anything else id for later in the process at disclosures WS stage

if they get that far ..

[lookinforinfo]

I have just looked at your correspondence from all the low lifes you have had to deal with.

They really do scrape the bottom of the barrel to find the lowest of the low.

 

First thing I saw was that the offence happened on 12th May and the PCN was dated the 25th May

-a Monday and also a Bank Holiday that year. so it could not have been posted by the Post office until the 26th and allowing the legal time for delivery on a first class letter it could not have been received until the 28th at the earliest. Far too late to comply with POFA.

 

Even though they do not appear to mention POFA on the PCN they do advise that they are relying on it to pursue the keeper should the driver not be named.  Slam dunk I think.

 

There is a very good case on the Parking Prankster of a woman being 30 minutes over the allotted time and was let off in Court as she claimed she had to drive around for that length of time to find a parking spot.

 

All the cameras do is record the time of arrival and departure not the actual parking time.

Even IPC have to allow ten minutes grace for motorists to find a parking spot and read the parking signs and decide whether they want to be bound by them. So a further 7 minutes driving around looking for a parking spot at a very busy period would not be unlikely. Their dumb cameras cannot prove or disprove that occurrence.

 

You could also mention that having children in the car -getting them in and out of their car seats adds time but would probably confirm that it was the mother driving so perhaps better not to mention it.

 

What you could add is that a BPA Director said this about grace periods-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/good-car-parking-practice-includes-grace-periods

 

now whilst IPC are different from the BPA, I think that many Judges in Court could take the above to carry some weight as you would expect both companies to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

have you managed to confirm whether VCS does have planning permission for its signs and ANPR cameras.

They tend not to bother and much more likely not to have had it back in 2015.

You would be looking at permissions under the Town and Country Act [Advertisements] Regulations 2007.

 

If they don't have it their signage is illegal [not unlawful-there is a huge difference] so their signs should not be there and certainly cannot offer a contract with motorists.

[dx100uk]

also did we not findout that at the time the signs still said excel and not VCS as they are now?

 

[anniebattlemum]

That would have been true in May 2015 - Spring Bank Holiday - but it happened in August 2015.

12th August was a Wednesday, 25th a Tuesday. Pity - excellent argument.

 

I don't see any specific reference to POFA anywhere?

The grace time is really relevant.

It's a very busy car park (maybe 50-60 cars) so my daughter has often had to drive around until someone vacates a spot.

There can also be congestion for actually getting into the parking spot when you find one.

 

Exiting is equally difficult, as it's an extremely busy road at all times, in a highly built-up area, with a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights right beside the entrance, causing further delays to the flow of traffic. Turning right onto Eccleshal Road could therefore involve a queue at the carpark exit. The Tesco (most important retailer onsite)  is well stocked and very popular, so the car park is always well occupied. 

 

My daughter didn't have children at the time of the non-compliance, otherwise the baby seat would have been a good argument.

I am still reviewing the IPC code of conduct to see whether there are any points to pick up on.

 

I have tried twice to call the Sheffield Planning Office but have been unable to get through, to ask about permission for signs and cameras. I will get onto that again on Monday. They close at 4p.m. Mondays to Fridays. I have no evidence re the signage at the Berkeley Centre in 2015 and it all changed last November.

 

I thought I saw a confusing reference to Exel rather than VCS on one of the letters but haven't been able to find it again. It would be very good if there was some history on the signage available somewhere.

[dx100uk]

many of these shopping centre had 3+ hrs of free parking granted on the PP when council gave permission to build etc

no-one can change that.

 

 

dx

 

[lookinforinfo]

I am so sorry about the date thing-no idea where I got May from.

However the date argument is still valid.

 

The Law allows two days for posting using first class which means their PCN would not have arrived until the 27th August-one day too late. So in the same way as David Beckham got off his speeding charge because his paperwork arrived a day late, it now works in your favour.

 

As far as the planning permission goes, many councils now have their planning permissions listed online so you may find it that way rather than ringing them. Hopefully you won't find it meaning that they didn't bother applying. This will be confirmed when your CPR 31.14 is not replied to either.  

 

On another note, I was very disappointed by the letters from BWLegal. To say that if an IAS appeal was lost then it is likely that you could expect the same result in Court-absolute rubbish. The IAS have a very restricted remit on what is a valid appeal to them that bears no similarity to the arguments that are heard in a Court of Law.

 

Then they compound their rubbish by stating that it is likely that a CCJ would be awarded against the Keeper!

Whatever happened to one being innocent until proved guilty.

 

BWLegal are really getting above themselves.

At best they are extremely poor solicitors so for them to attempt to alleviate themselves to being Judge and Jury is lamentable.

[brassnecked]

Driver And/Or Keeper has to be one or the other, if keeper then their £54 is an unlawful charge,

[anniebattlemum]

There has been no identification of the driver.

 

Do you mean they can only bring a claim against either the driver or the keeper - is there a regulation on this?

Could you explain further the £54 reference? Thx.

 

I have now been through every online planning application for this location from 1981 to date and have examined the application content wherever it appeared not to refer to a specific unit.

 

All I can find are applications for modifications to the numbered retail units,

a pending one requesting a change to the current sign showing a list of retail outlets,

and I can find no reference to VCS or Excel.

 

Am I missing anything?

 

If there is no planning permission, then surely the signs are not legal and there can be no contract?

 

I don't think there's any other search criteria other than the address, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[dx100uk]

looking good then

have you found the original planning permission and what the planning debt say about free parking time limit

it will usually say 3hrs for most retail centres built in that era.

that cannot be varied by anyone

[anniebattlemum]

Unfortunately I'm having real problems with that.

 

Apparently the Berkeley Centre was there in the 1960's, and earlier,

the site consisted of allotments in the 40's and 50's and seems to have been next to a 'snuff mill'.

I can find no information about the original construction and council planning for a retail centre. 

 

In 2010 Excel Parking were in the process of installing recognition cameras at the Berkeley Centre but I found no planning application for permission.

 

In 2012, I see that Excel were banned for 3 months from using the DVLA database, so at some point, they must have switched ownership from Excel to VCS - I realise Excel is the parent company.

[brassnecked]

We can assume that its unlikely there is  any Planning permission for the cameras, especially if they are on their own poles.

[lookinforinfo]

As the driver is the person whe would have seen the car park signage advising them of the extra charges involved with non payment [in this case 54 pounds] then if they are pursuing the driver there may be a case for charging that amount under POFA.

 

The registered keeper however was not there therefore didn't see the sign and so is not liable for that extra charge.

[anniebattlemum]

I see yes, so the defence should not mention anything that confirms the driver was actually there. 

 

Can anyone please direct me to the standard brief defence that is recommended?

 

I have been searching through the forum and have seen lots of instructions about the procedure but not the content of the standard defence.

 

Thanks.

 

[dx100uk]

just type no need to keep hitting quote

 

use the google custom search box on the left after hitting our top cag squares logo.

 

PCN Claimform

 

dx