VCS ANPR PCN now letter of claim - Berkeley Centre

[emmaTPockets]

Hello CAG friends, I have lurked for a while, always hoping nothing would come of the VCS pcn. 

A letter before claim is now here, requiring a response by early May. I put all the details on a pdf but it's too big to upload... back shortly! Thanks @FTMDave for answering swiftly. 

[dx100uk]

wouldn't bother with the LBA upload

we know what they look like

just answer this and upload your NTK etc

 

dx

 

 

[emmaTPockets]

Thanks  All - just having phone and wifi issues - so just need to check document details berfore I upload NTK file in a separate post. Thanks. 

 

[ ANPR camera capture]
 

1 Date of the infringement 08/01/2020

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 21/01/2020

 

3 Date received Not known - it went into a pile for another member of the family who was away - nearly got junked (all official mail to the Keeper usually has 2 initials)

 
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 - ANPR camera photo of vehicle entering and exiting site - not actual parking.

 
 

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

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up No

 

7 Who is the parking company? Vehicle Control Services (VCS)
 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Berkeley Centre, Sheffield

 

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

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here
PCN -Final Reminder - £100
Demand for Payment - £160
Final Demand - £160
Letter Before Claim - £160 + £25.00? Plus interest...

[dx100uk]

ok well the bottom line

from that other thread you are on

you need to send simon the same snotty letter.

 

dx

 

[emmaTPockets]

Thank you @dx100uk .  I'm just searching for that. I read one on another thread, which didn't work for that particular poster but the details were slightly different. 

Just uploading the NTK - has it been uploaded correctly? 

Thank you.

NTK Berkeley 08012020(1).pdf

[anniebattlemum]

First thought is that NTK date is 21/1/20 and date of infringement is 8/1/20. Since 2 days must be allowed for first class mail (assuming it was sent by mail), then it looks like it did not comply with the 14 day delivery requirement, as it would have arrived a day late. 

[dx100uk]

8+14=22??

[anniebattlemum]

Quote

 

21 + 2 = 23.

 

Second thought - I believe this car park has been managed by Excel Services since 2018. Check the signs in the car park. I believe VCS is no longer managing the car park and Excel is a completely separate company, with separate registration at Companies House. Therefore they have no business bringing any claim at all - VCS has no contract with the landowner and cannot offer a contract to the motorist. 

 

These are defence points but you need to send the snotty letter and follow the procedures recommended on this site before you get to that stage. Be ultra careful not to mention you were the driver. They cannot assume the Keeper was the driver.

[emmaTPockets]

I have some thoughts ... in no particular order yet.

 

Thank you @anniebattlemum for yours and @dx100uk - the timing is a day out to comply then? ( They state themselves - the 2nd working day from the issue date)

 

There is no mention of the specific mention of POFA 2012

- there is mention of Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) 2002 and a request to the DVLA, then later in the paragraph that images/data is held on file in accordance with Data Protection Legislation?

 

Interestingly I note that the keeper is 'invited' to (i), (ii) or C - (in this instance the keeper has declined the invitation?) 

 

The NTK has not arrived in accordance with POFA 12 guidelines time frame.

The personal data of the RK has been processed without providing a GDPR compliant privacy notice to the RK.

 

The NTK does not provide a good explanation as to why a NTK is necessary as the contravention reason states that the maximum period allowed at the site is 120 minutes and the duration of the 'stay' was 75 minutes 

-  the period of parking was less than this.

 

The keeper is unaware of the requirements of this car park and the claimant has not shown why the 'duration of stay' (shown as 75 minutes) requires a charge ( as it is clearly less than the 120 minutes allowed mentioned in the Contravention Reason) - to comply with a NTK, surely there should be some evidence as to why the charge is necessary? 

 

The letter before claim has a form to fill in - I read on another thread to use a template from here , but not sure if that was for a parking charge notice. Please advise.

 

Thanks all 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

same letter ABM sent in her thread.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN reads as if you didn't pay to park. Did you pay and did you pay the right amount?

[FTMDave]

Dx, in ABM's thread there was no LBA, the thread all started with the claimform.

 

Would be useful to understand what the fleecers are claiming the OP did wrong, as lookingforinfo asks.

[dx100uk]

opps sorry 

plenty of other bereley threads here with it in..use our search top right

 

as for payment..is not the free period 2hrs? so no ticket purchase needed?

[ericsbrother]

read up on the BErkeley Cnetre, plenty of thread here and also on the Parking pranksters blogspot.

Terrible site for signage etc so tell us what they said you did or didnt do to casuse you to owe them money

[ericsbrother]

the post you have posted on by sh3ffield you will notice the claim was dismissed out of hand as the contract with the landowner states 2 hours free parking. So again, what is it they said you didn wrong? have you still got any of the paperwork? Did you write to them about this and if so what did you say.

[dx100uk]

Its says so

simon claims free parking is one hour 

so didnt buy ticket for outside the 60 mins

 

exactly same as that dismissed claim you posted on last night

[anniebattlemum]

Can you please clarify the current terms and conditions for the carpark?

There is now a ticket machine, possibly installed by Excel when they took over the management.

 

Do you have to take a ticket however long you intend to stay, whether you will be in the free parking time or not?

Do you have to specify how long you intend to stay at the point of arrival?

Are you allowed 1 free hour and then you have to buy a ticket?

 

I presume the maximum period of parking is 2 hours but only 1 hour is free. Is that correct?

Do you have a photo of the advertised terms and conditions on the signage?

That would also clarify details of the current carpark management company.

 

If it's Excel, then it would be interesting to know which company applied to the DVLA for your details!!

(There's a standard letter asking DVLA for this info)

 

If Excel, then why is VCS making a claim against you?

If it was VCS and the advertised management company is Excel, then VCS had no right to apply for keeper data and that opens up a big can of worms with their AOS and data protection. 

[brassnecked]

Stuff on the Prankster about the VCS/Excel conflation,  might help frame what anniebattlemum alludes to above  be good to read up on it and you will see exactly where to trip Simple Simon up https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/vehicle-control-services-have-no-right.html

 

[emmaTPockets]

I understand that not identifying the driver is important.

 

In this instance the keeper is also unaware of the car park terms and conditions and the PCN NTK did not show what car park charge, if any, existed at the time. 

 

A photo of the most recent signage was posted on another thread, but that has not been provided to the keeper by the company

 

. If they (the keeper) have never been there, or seen signage to explain the charges, the NTK is not clear why a PCN is necessary as there is no explanation of the tariffs. 

 

From the photograph of the signs, 1 hour is free. Up to 2hrs is £1.

 

It would take some good experience of parking sites and local knowledge of this particular car park to understand how fiercely any contravention might be dealt with.

 

Add into that any difficulty/delay in parking would that possibly amount to what would be an acceptable grace period - a driver staying for an hour might have assumed their hour began from parking and ended pulling out of the space. 

Any ticket purchase must be made on arrival. 

A contract is considered to have been entered when you drive on site as the anpr records vehicles - before signage is read? 

The 'right' to an appeal has long passed but a form was sent with the Letter before claim from the litigation & debt department am I to fill that in, or  acknowledge it in a letter? There is no official 'title' on the form (it is a reply form) There is a code on the side. 

There is also a sentence which says 'If you have any questions or would like to discuss the debt, please call the company that sent you this form as soon as possible'. 

 

Am I overthinking this, if they sent the NTK out of the allowed time frame, should that just be enough? 

 

I just want to ring them and say please don't persist.... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[emmaTPockets]

Thank you @brassneckedI would have replied sooner but I couldn't get back on the site. I thought I'd crashed it by trying to upload a photo which I had previously copied from another thread. I'll look at the parking prankster. 

[FTMDave]

No, the site was down earlier, I had problems with it around 5pm UK time.

[brassnecked]

Yes just come back up now for me. 

[FTMDave]

Emma,

 

whatever you do, don't ring them.  It'd just encourage them into thinking they could scare you into paying.

 

Similarly, it's irrelevant to them if the NTK was sent out too late (mind you, it wouldn't be to a judge).  They'd just make up some reason it was OK anyway - they're conmen interested solely in £££££.

 

I'm afraid things won't be sorted out overnight.  These leeches have got your address and will hope to wear you down and/or scare you with threats of being hung, drawn & quartered in court, to get you to cough up.  The good news of course is that their claim is pants and they're eminently beatable - as Anniebattlemum's thread shows, no to mention the various other VCS & Excel victories shown in the PPC Successes thread at the top of the page.

 

You do need to send a snotty reply to the LBA, ridiculing their claim.  The idea is to show them they would have the hassle of dealing with a defended claim in court which may make them give up and go after some mug instead.  No guarantees of course.  Please do some research and then write up a draft of what you intend to send.

 

BTW, I love it that Anniebattlemum is now being referred to as ABM.  Perhaps we should add the abbreviation to the A-Z of Motoring Terms 

[anniebattlemum]

Thanks FTMDave - I'm touched!

[anniebattlemum]

Attached are photos of the signage at the Berkeley Centre taken last July. You will see that all the signs clearly state that the carpark is managed by Excel and would have been managed by Excel at the time of your alleged breach. In the light of this evidence, I would be inclined to include in your snotty letter, some words to the following effect:

 

You have no idea who this company VCS is, nor why they are asking you to pay them money.

Their correspondence refers to the carpark at the Berkeley Precinct, but you know for a fact that this carpark is managed by Excel Services, a completely different company.

You are deeply concerned that this outfit VCS has managed to get hold of your personal data and details of your vehicle registration.

You propose to take this whole data protection issue up with their trade organisation, IPC, and also the DVLA.

Please stop harassing me further.

 

FYI EmmaTPockets: Every PPC is reliant on its membership of an accredited trade organisation (IPC or BPA) to obtain access to info at the DVLA. If the PPC fails to observe the Code of Practice laid down by that association, it can be disciplined and possibly suspended, so that access to DVLA data is no longer possible - this has happened to VCS for 6 months in the past. This means they are no longer able to identify people to squeeze money out of, which is fundamental to their miserable business plan. This threat to inform  on them won't make them quake in their boots, but the idea is to persuade Simon that it's just easier to go after someone else, to take the pressure off you,. just as FTMDave says above. 

Berkeley Precinct photos 11.7.19.pdf