VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC - now claimform - no stopping - East Midlands Airport

[Alaska101]

Hello people,

My case is almost similar to others here who have been stung by VCS and I am hoping to get help regarding the current situation I am in.

 

In the middle of Februrary this year I happened to drop off my mother-in-law at three in the morning at East Midlands Airport.

I am aware of no stoppage signs around that area because I also happen to work in the same industrial estate which is also owned by East midlands airport but a little further from the airport.

 

the organisation I work for has an office in the same industrial estate and they have their own parking but obviously at 3 o'clock in the morning it wasn't very convenient to park next to the office and then walk about 2 km to the airport.

 

I had made sure that I did not park on the double red lines as marked on almost all the roads in that area.

I've pulled up away from the road and away from the double lines into a small piece of land which had no restrictions on it.

 

I had seen the spy car while parking up but I assumed that it would be safe because I am away from the road and I'm away from the double right lines into another plot but clearly that wasn't the case as per VCS.

 

i received a PCN asking me to pay hundred pounds which I appealed

I replied to them that I was not parked on the road or on the double lines but it was rejected by VCS .

 

They started sending me letters of claim ,the last letter now I received says letter before claim

I think they are hoping to take me to the County Court to claim £160 as well as the court fees which is £25 if I do not respond to them by 21st of June.

I've also attached a letter with information redacted.

 

I'm hoping to get some advice on what should I do next because I do not really want to pay them £160 for something which I believe is a rip off practice by VCS and others like it.

 

I had taken plenty of pictures when I pulled up that morning which show the car is parked away from the road and away from the double red lines which I had sent to BCS but they did not entertain.

 

 

Photos (Redacted).pdf

VCS PAPLOC.pdf

[FTMDave]

If you have a read through some other VCS or Excel (both companies are run by the same shyster) airport threads you'll soon get the idea.

 

Airports have their own bye-laws which a private company can't override so you don't owe them a bean.

 

You do need to reply with a snotty letter though to show Simple Simon that you know the law and he'd have a fight on his hands if he took you to court.  There is an excellent example in Northmonk's thread (post 50) which is currently four places below your thread.

Edited May 31, 2020 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Could you also fill in the forum sticky please?  It will help us to find further holes in Simple Simon's ticket.

 

 

[Alaska101]

Thanks FTMDave. I have now been through a few threads as recommended and have copied a letter from northmonk. Can you please check if its ok? Also I have question regarding why we address VCS as "simple simon"?

 

Dear Simple-Simon,

VCS speculative invoice no: VCS*******

After reading your LBA I can see why you are referred to as "simple"! Do you really think that I would pay money to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65.

Your prohibitive signs are just that and no offer of a contract. Even if they were a legitimate offer of a contract, they completely ignore the 5-10 minute grace period usually afforded in such cases anyway.  

You knew you had no legitimate reason to ask for my details so you are already in breach of GDPR. If you want to take me to Court, you’re more than welcome as I will be seeking a full costs recovery through a recovery order. No liability or debt is owed to VCS so please refrain from sending any future letters demanding money.

Finally I'll refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram case and the letter from Private Eye magazine, act on that!

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

The owner of VCS/Excel Parking is called Simon Renshaw-Smith, hence Simple Simon.

 

I'm not sure a copy and paste of the letter is the best thing to do but maybe you could do your own version. Don't go out of your way to be polite, what you're trying to do is to tell Simples that you think there is no case and will be vigorously defending anything that might turn up.

 

Post up what you plan to say so we can tweak it if needed.

 

And we need the information FTMDave asked for please.

 

HB

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Alaska101

you are writing to a guy who runs a crooked business who is trying to scare you into paying an amount of money that he knows you do not owe. Why would you respond anywhere near politely to him.

 

Also you are sending him the message that you are not intimidated by him and are not going to pay his unlawful demand.

If he had a brain he would realise that when he gets these kind of letters in response to his letter of claim that he would do better to move on to someone else that he can frighten into paying. That he usually continues with the folly tends to compound the knowledge that he is indeed a simpleton.

 

The other thing to remember is that your letter may be shown in Court.

Judges around the Country will have read his nickname and as he loses just about all, if not all, well defended cases , Judges will have come to the same conclusion as ourselves.

 

You also have to ask the question what kind of idiot, knowing that he has little chance of winning a defended case in Court, still perseveres in taking that keeper to Court where he has been called simple thus confirming in some many minds that the epithet must be correct.

[Alaska101]

For PCN's received through the post [ ANPR camera capture]

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 24-Feb-20

 

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 02-Mar-20

 

3 Date received 12-Mar-20

 

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. already uploaded alongside my 2nd post.

 

6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Yes. It was done online on myparkingcharge.co.uk but unable to find now as it says this ticket is not valid. I had asked the PCN to be cancelled on the basis that plot where I parked the car at 05:05 in the morning was away from the main road and away from double red lines.

 

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes. "

 

We refer to your appeal in respect of the above Charge Notice (CN) received on 23/03/2020.

26/03/2020

Having considered the points you have raised and reviewed our records, we are unable to accept your appeal. Our main reason(s) for this decision are as follows:

 

The signs at the entrance to the East Midlands International Airport and the access roads within, clearly state "No Stopping", giving clear notice that the land is private property and that a Charge of £100 will be levied if vehicles do stop.

The above detailed vehicle stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited and the driver became liable to pay that Charge.

 

In your appeal you have confirmed to us that on the date in question, you stopped your vehicle on the access road, which is an area where stopping is not permitted.

 

A review of our CCTV evidence has confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to drop off a passenger on the access road where restrictions apply.

 

There are over 240 high profile signs advising drivers not to stop and warning that if a driver does stop, a charge of £100 is payable.

The signs exceed recognised industry standards, with some as large as 2m by 1.1m (6ft 6in by 3ft 7in) which clearly state "No Stopping" alongside the nationally recognised Highway Code symbol for a Clearway (No Stopping).

 

Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming vehicles and the text size used is relative to the average approach speed of a vehicle in relation to the speed limit in force at that location.

 

We have fully reviewed this case and we are satisfied that the Charge Notice was correctly issued.

We are unable to accept the mitigating circumstances raised in your representations,

 

your appeal is therefore rejected and the Charge will stand; photographic evidence which supports this can be viewed at www.myparkingcharge.co.uk..

 

7 Who is the parking company? VCS 

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] East Midlands Airport, castle Donington, DE74 2TQ 

 

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

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

Received 02 more comms titled "Demand for Payment" and "Final Demand" before the LBC.

in demand for payment letter they have made a reference to "ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (2015} UKSC 67 in which the Supreme Court held that parking charges serve a legitimate commercial interest and are neither extravagant nor unconscionable."

 

ALL_VCS_Correspondence_(Redacted).pdf

[Alaska101]

 

@LookingForInfoI can understand that you mean well (cheers for that and I appreciate it)

but really its the kind of upbringing I had where being mean to mean people is highly discouraged as it leaves one struggling to distinguish between good and bad.

 

I have slightly modified the letter as recommended by honeybee13.

Please let me know your thoughts guys. T

hank you

 

Dear Simple-Simon,

VCS invoice no: VCS4*****

You clearly are not as simple as you sound. Why would I part ways with my hard earned cash and hand it over to a to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65.

Your prohibitive signs are just that and no offer of a contract. Even if they were a legitimate offer of a contract, they completely ignore the 5-10 minute grace period usually afforded in such cases anyway.  

I believe VCS is already in breach of GDPR as it had no legitimate reason to ask for my details. If you want to take me to Court, you’re more than welcome as I will be seeking a full costs recovery through a recovery order. No liability or debt is owed to VCS so please refrain from sending any future letters demanding money.

Finally I'll refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram case and the letter from Private Eye magazine, act on that!

[FTMDave]

Surely in the first line you mean "You clearly are as simple as you sound" (i.e., cut out "not").

 

There's also a typo where you repeat "to a to a".

 

Personally in the last line I'd stop at the "Arkell v Pressdram case" so they won't have a clue what it is until they look it up (if they do)!

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Alaska101,

I know it can be difficult to be rude to people but here you are dealing with a bunch of crooks who care only how much money they can make from innocent motorists.

 

there is no need to be polite to them

-indeed to do so to them shows that they have a chance of getting you to pay  if they put enough pressure on you.

All this despite the fact that they know they have no legal right to ask for money from you.

 

On another subject,

I see that the NTK was sent to you on the 2nd March  yet you didn't receive it until the 10th March.

Was this because you car is leased or another reason.

 

Also, unless VCS already know your name  [possibly because the car was hired/leased/ do not tell them who was driving.

They have not complied with POFA so can only pursue the driver.

 

[dx100uk]

already told them they were driving in the appeal...

 

you work on the complex?? so you KNOW who owns the land - the airport authority!!
 

and you are bound by the byelaws....go find where the byelaws state no stopping for me..

then go find out what happens if you break a byelaw...

 

then you'll realise this charlatan is scamming you 

 

[Alaska101]

Thanks guys for your inavaluable input. @lookinforinfo trying my best

~Thanks @FTMDave

i actually meant it. clearly he likes to complicate things for people I have now modified it as suggested. please check.

@dx100ukI most certianly will be referring to that if it comes to it

 

Dear Simple-Simon,

VCS invoice no: VCS******

I have been in receipt of your threatening letters during the course of last couple of months. I am amazed at the extraordinary demands you have been making while having no legal grounds. Why would I part ways with my hard earned cash and hand it over to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65.

Your prohibitive signs are just that and do not offer of a contract. Even if they were a legitimate offer of a contract, they completely ignore the 5-10 minute grace period usually afforded in such cases anyway.  

I believe VCS is already in breach of GDPR as it had no legitimate reason to ask for my details. If you want to take me to Court, you’re more than welcome as I will be seeking a full costs recovery through a recovery order. No liability or debt is owed to VCS so please refrain from sending any future letters demanding money.

Finally I'll refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram.

[FTMDave]

Arkell v Pressdram case.

[Alaska101]

I'll change and send tomorrow. thanks @FTMDave

[ericsbrother]

Now read up on private parking so you start to understand a lot more about what the bandits get up to and how they progress things.

 

one thing you can be suRe of though and that is they wont give in too easily as they know their entire operations at the airports is a sham and they stand to lose a  fortune if they dont keep trying. 

 

They may decide that your letter is from the CAG stable and go quiet to avoid more expense but here again they may decide that you might, just might, pay up if they issue an actual claim because they use the courts to harass and coerce rather than collect money that is actually owed.

 

As the ministry of justice can only sanction them if they keep suing the same person without  just cause they will play the numbers game.

 

that is also why they dont appeal to a higher court because that is a one shot gun and miss with that and game over, they have to go home

[Alaska101]

@ericsbrother its just unbelievable that these crooks are making millions from the misery of others.

 

At EMA, they have either 2 or 3 spycars and always driving around to catch their prey. My wife got stung by one of these when she picked up her sister on the BP at the same airport.

 

We tried to reason by appealing but that didnt work and ended up paying. Wish I knew then what I know now.

[FTMDave]

How did she pay?  There's always chargeback.

[Alaska101]

@FTMDaveI paid using my CC. Charge back how? it was in summer last year? would that still be possible?

[FTMDave]

A web search came up with a limit of 120 days, so probably not feasible.  It was just an idea.

[dx100uk]

chargeback is 120days (total 540 days) - debit cards

this is a section 75 under the CCA - credit card

there is no limit other than 6yrs limitation.

 

dx

 

[Alaska101]

Top advice guys @dx100uk and @FTMDave.

just checked Chargeback and Section 75 info on Which and called up John lewis.

Not eligible for both because Chargeback is for any transcations in last 120 days which I missed by few weeks and Section 75 applies to all transactions above £100 and below £30k.

But i can raise a dispute on transaction which I would be doing today.

 

Thanks again guys.

[dx100uk]

no chargeback is 540 days from transaction

the 120 days runs from when you realise chargeback is applicable.

 

but as this was a credit card you paid by, that's immaterial anyway.

 

[Alaska101]

A little update from my end folks:

LBC "deadline" passed. been quite a few weeks since i posted out my response. Also posted another letter asking them to refund the charges paid for mrs. I'll take that up with John Lewis now.

I'm sure they will try and sting another time but we'll see. I'll keep you guys posted. Lovely work! a well deserving donation on the way

[dx100uk]

 

just don't moved within 6yrs and not inform them.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

thye have a lot of cases held up in the covid quagmire so wont be spending more money on court fees until they start to get results form all of the £50's thay ahve spent recently.

An important case was publicised recently and they also need to see if that bites their backside as well