VCS Windscreen PCN Claimform - face down Ticket -

[joa1]

Good morning,

 

No not had anything back from VCS, I can’t find anything on planning permission, not sure if that’s a good or bad thing, I know I’ve used that car park on and off for at least the last ten years. 

 

I’ll just have to sit tight until February I think that’s the date they have until to pay for the court case. 

 

Anyway I will keep my fingers crossed that I return home to another letter. I do have a feeling that I will end up going to court though, I’ve read a few cases that have lost similar to mine as it’s the drivers responsibility to make sure the ticket is visible hence the pay & display! 

 

Can an I ask again if they are intending to send me information ?

[ericsbrother]

no they arent and that is the popint in asking for it as you can then write that they have failed to show they have the necessary permissions and that forces them to show them as part of their evidence or there is no case to answer.

 

you have to push this point from the outset or it will get missed.

 

as for upside down ticket, yes it is possibly a breach of contract but you then have to consider what the courts think about the "de minimis" rule regarding VCS loss (or lack of it) and the exact wording of the clause in the offered contract that will say about displaying a ticket. If there are other ways of pying, ie Ringo, then the ticket is a complete red herring as it cannot apply in all circumstabces and your ticket is merely a receipt, same as the relpy text on your phone with the Ringo app so not a contractual conditon to display.

[lookinforinfo]

It would be great if you used the Parking Eye v Beavis against these crooks instead of having it quoted ad nauseam to we motorists and normally in inappropriate situations.

In their summing up a Judge said

 19

“120. The underlying rationale of the doctrine of penalties is that the Court will grant relief against the enforcement of provisions for payment (or the loss of rights or the compulsory transfer of property at nil or an undervalue) in the event of breach, where the amount to be paid or lost is out of all proportion to the loss attributable to the breach. If that is so, the provisions are likely to be regarded as penal because their function is to act as a deterrent.”

In your case their charges are totally out of all proportion to the breach and are therefore a penalty. As a penalty, the whole demand is cancelled.

[brassnecked]

Yes PPC's forget that Beavis works both ways, and if flipped ticket is de-minimis, so demand is unlawful penalty as no loss to claim on.