Jump to content


VCS ANPR PCN now letter of claim - Berkeley Centre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 414 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

Good suggestion above – but be measured in the way the you express it or else it will look like bluster. Also at some point early on in the data you need to make a clear general statement that you deny that any contract existed between you and that you deny any liability in any event

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 th

Please reconsider the snotty letter advice. It is recommended because it conveys to the buncj h of crooks that you are dealing with that you have no intenion of paying them. It alos alerts the Judge w

Yes also check the Prankster for cases where VCS were spanked in court for claiming when Excel were the name on signs, Simple Simon has tripped himself up with this before, claiming are same company .

for example this one

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/vehicle-control-services-have-no-right.html

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All - thank you for your contributions - I have been doing my reading up and will come back with the letter - hopefully tomorrow. (that is today now -29th I got distracted in my lockdown studies) 

 

Please could anyone confirm whether the reply form must be used - is it part of the pre- action protocol ? Off to check Civil Procedure rules.

 

 

Dear ....

 

I am in receipt of a letter before claim from your 'litigation and debt department'. 

 

After reading the POFA 2012 Schedule 4  it states that a 'creditor has the right to recovery if all the applicable conditions under the schedule are met'.

 

I acknowledge I am ..............the keeper of ......... 

 

I was not the driver of the vehicle in your letter.

I cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver nor does the speculative claim meet conditions requiring keeper compliance with any said contravention.

 

Do not persist in sending these or any other notices -

 

The Notice to Keeper did not comply with the mandated requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, namely but not limited to, failure to meet the applicable conditions under the schedule.

 

2 (a) The period of parking has not been specified - legislation requires this - here they only state that parking occurred between two times recorded by an ANPR

7 (c) Description of the charges, the circumstances and other facts should have been made on the notice - the keeper has not parked on this site, no knowledge of the signage can be assumed. There is no explanation of the tariff - this is no guide to the keeper.

9 (5) The NTK has fallen outside the 14 day notice requirement - which means the creditor is no longer entitled to recover unpaid parking charges

 

In addition to the lack of adherence to mandated requirements the following points have also been noted:

-the company (which the keeper does not know or have any contract with) confusingly seems not to be the one advertised on the signs - photographs of which have been obtained. 

 A letter will be sent to the Secretary of State to lodge a complaint and the DVLA will be requested to release which of these companies has obtained personal data - 

This company has sent the keeper a letter before claim with elevated 'charges', which a solicitor would know do not meet the conditions outlined in POFA 2012 schedule 4. This is not the company on the signage. This is a separate company. 

 

Another point to consider -  a driver local to the area might know of this car park, it's procedures and the reputation of the parking company which manages it. A search was able to find an article in the local press earlier in the year where a local driver's duration of stay (not parking) was only slightly longer than on the NTK received, this case was taken to court only to be dismissed by the judge, along with any other cases brought before them with  less than a two hour duration of stay.  

 

Please do not contact me further.

 

Any further action by this company with whom the keeper denies having any contract or liability will be considered vexatious and further use of personal data would now be in breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

(not quite there ...but fell asleep ... back later!)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you ignore their form.

 

and that is far too much detail

 

save the details for IF IF IF it goes to court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Just condense it down to the three main points  the three line drfence as DX says detail not required yet, it might give them something else to chuck at you IF it went to court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just send the letter at the start of the thread dx posted.

 

The digging you've done is excellent but it's not needed yet, the point at the moment is just to tell Simple Simon to Foxtrot Oscar and see if he crawls back under his stone. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks All - I appreciate your input - I was working on this when FTM and BN  posted above. Could you please read and give your thoughts?

 

 

Question 1 - the name on the letter before claim is a X from the Litigation department(perhaps I shouldn't name him on here?) but on your snotty letters you specifically name SRS - what do you recommend I use?

 

Question 2 - An alleged 'outstanding balance' needs to be received by May 3. (I am not paying obviously as I don't admit to the alleged liability and the request is not compliant).This 'suggested principle debt' should be received by a date they say is within 30 days of the date of the letter before claim (should that not be 30 days from the date received?) -  Date on LBC is 3/4, (sent by 2nd class post so not received until 7th May) -  30 days from date on LBC is a Sunday, should I send this out today? I can't see any information regarding dates if a Keeper is not intending on paying a spurious claim. Am I bound by a reply date as the scare tactics suggest that if the alleged outstanding balance is not settled , legal proceedings against the keeper will commence without further notice.

 

I have looked back at some of the threads - a number were linked to ( I'm still getting to grips with navigating the site) - I saw a few 'snotty letters' . By nature I am not inclined to be 'snotty' on paper (only tissues) however I hope that my firm response is indication enough that they should cease communicating with me. 

 

Reply - 

 

Dear ....

I have received a letter before claim from your litigation department. 
I acknowledge that I am the keeper of the vehicle – registration mark …………………….
I deny that any contract exists between myself (the keeper) and the company issuing them – I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day to which this alleged liability refers, nor was I present at the site on that day. 


I draw your attention to The Notice to Keeper for this speculative claim which did not meet the applicable conditions requiring keeper compliance with any alleged contravention.  This did not arrive within the 14 day time period required.

 

I do not approve of your methods, if they continue I will be reporting you to the trade body, the DVLA and the landowner.


Other available points could be discussed in court, but as the company has not met the applicable conditions set out in order to begin a claim, please don’t waste your time or money.


Any further action or communication will be considered vexatious harassment and further use of my personal data would be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Please remove my details from your system and respond to that effect only.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please reconsider the snotty letter advice. It is recommended because it conveys to the buncj h of crooks that you are dealing with that you have no intenion of paying them. It alos alerts the Judge when he sees the letter, the kind of company he is dealing with if he didn't know before.

Your letter is too polite leading VCS to think you may well pay up and does not inform the Judge, should it get that far, that he is dealing with a bunch of scumbags. One more thing-it is fun to write. The only downside is that they are too thick skinned and plian dumb to take offence. They also know that what is being said is true. So go on, have some fun-you are in lockdown so you need something to raise your spirits.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

use the one in that other thread.....

you are after insulting him …..

not giving away the cards you'll play if he's stupid enough to do court...……...

 

"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 accessing 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."

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

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 acknowledge I am ..............the keeper of ......... 

 

I was not the driver of the vehicle in your letter nor present at the site on that date.

I cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver nor does the speculative claim meet conditions requiring keeper compliance with any alleged contravention. I deny any contract with the company.

I would strenuously defend any claim against me. 

 

Do not persist in sending these or any other notices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not insulting...

 

dx

 

  • Haha 1

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

Way too polite

Dear Simple Simon

As you well know no Locus Standi to invoice the keeper, Land isn't run by VCS is Excel a different company it matters not you are with them both  so your claim is likely to be sucked into a black hole and lost as you have been spanked in court by judges before on just this issue.

 

Looks at ericsbrothers missives, the more insulting the better.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emma, you're obviously a very sweet person who finds it difficult to be obstreperous, but you have to remember who you're dealing with and what he plans to try to get out of you, without just cause. You need to be on the offensive right from the start, or he'll think you're a pushover! Remember you're trying to avoid hours and hours of preparation for a court hearing - been there, done that! You'll have to take a deep breath and beef up I'm afraid, to try to make this go away. Try to get yourself in angry mode, feel bitter and resentful for a couple of minutes and vent your wrath! I'm only sorry I never had the chance to write such a letter. Do it!

I do like dx100uk's version, and especially the foxtrot Oscar reference which is priceless.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't advise that...should they wish to proceed dont forget they have a right to disclose all documents pursuant to Pre Action Protocol and you wouldn't want a judge to see that from a defendant. ..you lose before you start.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Andy , if you are referring to the last flippant comment. I definitely won't put that on!

The being snotty bit is not in me I'm afraid. But I'm tenacious and will not baulk . I just need to get this letter sent out. I have seen the pre - action protocol and that's what has minded me just to be straight to the point. Other snotty letters have still resulted in the same trajectory from what I have read so far. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the letter is to let Simple know you know he has no grounds to claim a bean and ericsbrother's missive stay the right side of tghings so that a judge will see that you know simple is trying it on, its almost abuse of process all the claims PPCs issue on a similar POC, which is why we refer to them as a Roboclaim. Really needs the Courts to join the dots and tolchock (nadsat for spank or hit) the PPCs  That site is well known on here and simple has lost in court before there.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter before claim from your litigation department. I dispute the claim.


I am the keeper of the vehicle – registration mark …………………….


No contract exists between the company and the keeper and no liability is accepted.

Your claim is flawed and misrepresentative.

You have no locus standi. 


I deny that any contract exists between myself (the keeper) and the company issuing this letter before claim

– I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day therefore not the user of the site to which this alleged liability refers, nor was I present at the site on that day. 


Other available points could be discussed in court – but since your claim is flawed, I would suggest you reconsider further process and drop your spurious claim.


I have read recent cases of abuse of process and contract misrepresentation - I also understand you get many of your cases thrown out - didn’t a judge recommend you attend court with a toothbrush in the past? 


I would strenuously defend a claim against me. 
Do not waste your time or money.


Any further action or communication will be considered vexatious harassment and further use of my personal data would be in breach of GDPR.


Please remove my details from your system and respond to that effect only. 

Am I allowed to privately contact a forum member? I want my mummy.... @anniebattlemum

 

No offence to any of my CAG helpers. @dx100uk @ericsbrother @brassnecked @Andyorch 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just send what you were told to

 

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 accessing 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."

 

stop faffin around being nice

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...