Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VCS windscreen PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - Canley Railway Station, Coventry.CV5 6BH


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1621 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A few years ago on this forum I took the advice of ignoring a PCN which as predicted eventually went away.

 

In May this year I received a windscreen notice form myparkingcharges and I decided to do nothing and see what happened.

It seems that there is a more tenacious follow up these days.

 

(Briefly: A small full car park for the local railway station. 

My tiny SMART car will fit into a small space which is too small for most cars but is not marked with white lines in the way other spaces are.

I have parked there before without incident and actually thought I was doing a good turn by saving the big spaces for more average sized cars).


Today I have received a Letter Before Claim and am now not sure what to do.

My instinct is to pay the initial £60 charge but it seems that may not end the matter.

I have read about an SAR which I need to submit - would it mean a letter something like this?:

 

Thank you for your letter dated **/08/2019. 

Please can you let me have a copy of all photos taken

Please provide me with a copy of all letters on this subject.
Please send me a PDT machine record from that day including payments made 

A copy of all data held, all evidence you will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN and NTK
A  list of all PCNs you consider are outstanding against me and/or this VRN, 

 

Is this correct?

I would rather just get rid of this and pay the initial £60 but as the bill is now £160 it is a lot of money to lose.

 I have tried to read through all relevant threads but would really appreciate some easy to follow advice.

If I can get away with £60 I would be OK but obviously would rather not pay at all.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi, welcome back.

 

Could you post up the questions from the forum sticky together with your answers so we can advise you please? It's best to wait until the guys have looked at your information before you start writing as it could end up as pointless letter tennis.

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the swift reply.

These are the answers to the questions on the sticky:

It was a windscreen 'Red Square': ATTENTION DOCUMENT ENCLOSED.

It was followed up 9 days later with a Parking Charge Notice/Notice to Keeper

 

1 The date of infringement? 20/05/19

 

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.   RECEIVED on 01/06/2019

 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Only of the car registration plate. Not of the parking bays

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) NO

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, Not applicable

 

5 Who is the parking company? myparkingcharge

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?  Canley Railway Station,Network West Midlands,Canley Station,Canley Road.Coventry.CV5 6BH

 

The car was only parked for minutes as I was being dropped off at the Station by a neighbour who was using my car. She just walked with me to the station to help with my luggage. The car park is free. My tiny SMART car was in a small space that would not accommodate bigger cars. The car park was full and we were only a few minutes as I was catching a train. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to VCS Letter Before Claim - Canley Railway Station, Coventry.CV5 6BH

really they think they can over rule railway byelaws now too..!!

 

 

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

scan up your NTK to one PDF please

read upload

bet you were there<10mins anyway.

 

in all effect it matters not as I expect [you need to check on planning portal of council]

the car park land is owned by the railway co. so byelaws rule.

 

dx

 

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

Can you confirm the car park? They are saying a business park on the ntk. Need to establish if it's railway land covered by byelaws or not.

 

Have a look on the website and see what photos they have. Have they given you observation times?

 

Get your own photos of the site. Entrance, overall plan (inc sign locations) where you parked. We could do with a close-up of the signs. Need to read the "naughty list" and small print. 

 

The parking charge was £100, discounted to £60 for early payment. VCS aren't likely to be offering the discount again any day soon. The extra £60 that's gone on top of the £100 can only be claimed from the driver, not the keeper. Don't tell them who was driving and the most they can claim is £100. As it's VCS they will keep at this like a dog with a bone, but you should be able to swat it away with the right response at the right time - which isn't yet. For now, gather the info, let us have it, but otherwise sit tight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have loaded the photos from the car park and the various notices.

To answer Mrs O Frog's questions:

The sign at the entrance to the car park indicates it is Canley Station Car Park provided for rail users only. It is under the 'banner' West Midlands Network and refers to West Midlands combined authority. I am not sure whether it comes under railway land byelaws. There is a road between the station and this car park so it is not right next to it. About a 30 second walk.

 

The driver/ vehicle does not come under the full terms and conditions for 10 minutes. I do not know what evidence there is that the car was there for longer than 10 minutes. I was reluctant to follow the links on their initial windscreen notice to their website for fear of incriminating myself. Is this where there might be more evidence/photos and if so am I 'safe' to take a look?

 

The signage does clearly say parking only in marked bays- we chose to park for a short time in a small space next to the bays thereby freeing up space for other cars. My car is so small it easily fitted in the space - my bonnet facing the wall and the rear end lined up with the other cars. It did not block anything including the Park and Ride sign on the wall.

 

it is obvious taking a closer look that there are cameras trained on that area no doubt to catch people out when the car park is full and there is no other choice but to take a risk and park where they shouldn't. There are no other alternative car parks nearby so not being able to park means missing the train. 

 

As this is a free car park for users of the station presumably catching people out is the only source of income and why cameras are positioned where they are.

 

The Privacy notice is also clear.


I look forward to hearing your advice. Thanks so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lookinforinfo,

 This is a pdf scan of the windscreen notices. It is as clear as I can get it. 

 

To answer Mrs O Frog's questions:

The sign at the entrance to the car park indicates it is Canley Station Car Park provided for rail users only. It is under the 'banner' West Midlands Network and refers to West Midlands combined authority. I am not sure whether it comes under railway land byelaws. There is a road between the station and this car park so it is not right next to it. About a 30 second walk.

 

The driver/ vehicle does not come under the full terms and conditions for 10 minutes. I do not know what evidence there is that the car was there for longer than 10 minutes. I was reluctant to follow the links on their initial windscreen notice to their website for fear of incriminating myself. Is this where there might be more evidence/photos and if so am I 'safe' to take a look?

 

The signage does clearly say parking only in marked bays- we chose to park for a short time in a small space next to the bays thereby freeing up space for other cars. My car is so small it easily fitted in the space - my bonnet facing the wall and the rear end lined up with the other cars. It did not block anything including the Park and Ride sign on the wall.

 

it is obvious taking a closer look that there are cameras trained on that area no doubt to catch people out when the car park is full and there is no other choice but to take a risk and park where they shouldn't. There are no other alternative car parks nearby so not being able to park means missing the train. 

 

As this is a free car park for users of the station presumably catching people out is the only source of income and why cameras are positioned where they are.

 

The Privacy notice is also clear.


I look forward to hearing your advice.

 

Thanks so much

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The windscreen notice I suspect is one of VCS's red "This is not a parking charge" sticky bits of confetti. It has been argued against and lost (on a few occasions) the courts and DVLA both say it's okay and isn't a ntd (despite the fact that it's a notice and is left for the driver) so they can still use the 14 day timings. A mockery of the system I know, but there we have it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm..allowed to take photos of people to ID the driver

 

oh no they are NOT!!

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

thread tidied

yes its a red notice too

FP can you attach the windscreen ticket scan pdf again please

it appear to have not stayed .

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

I have been trying to find out who owns the Land. Without paying the Fee to the Land registry I can't ascertain but will do if this is essential. This is the free information they have provided.

Address:

Park and Ride Site
Coventry Business Park
Canley Road

 

Tenure:
Leasehold
 
Everything else I can find relates to West Midlands Combined Authority who offer 'Considerate Parking'.
 

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have checked the site and there are 6 photos. All but one are angles of the car parked and the  registration plate. The other is a photo of the Park and Ride notice already provided via my pdf upload. There is no evidence of the driver or of how long the car was parked there. 

It reads:

The Site Enforcer had reasonable belief that the above vehicle had committed the following contravention:

Contravention: 86) PARKED BEYOND THE BAY MARKINGS.

 Date and time of recorded contravention: 20th May, 2019 at 09:55:00

 

If the photos are useful I will pdf them but I dont think they really add anything to the initial photo on the NTK.

I cant see any evidence of how long the car was parked there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no time stamps anywhere they cannot prove you were there for more than 10 minutes. That gave you time  to read the signs and decide you didn't want to abide by their T&Cs , so you left.  And you weren't parked there, just stopping to read the signs.

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great advice-thats what I hoped I could say.

Next question - when do I do that?

Is this the sitting and waiting bit now having collected all the bits and pieces I need?

Is there anything else I need to do for now?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as post 12

 

lets see if they are brave enough to send a letter of claim.

 

IMHO nothing for you to do yet bar get clear photos of the T&C's small print?

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...