VCS 2*Vanishing Windscreen PCN's - now Claimform - Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip ***Claim Dismissed***

[EL21]

Hi there,

 

My parents have received two individual NTKs from VCS after both cars were in Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip.

So that’s one NTK for each car. The reason for both is: ‘Parked in Restricted / Prohibited Area’ – what does that mean? They were parked in the retail park? For info: 

 

I logged into myparkingcharge and saw that both cars had a ticket on the windshield but had been removed so these NTKs came out of nowhere. Why would the person issuing the charge have removed it from the windshield? What do they gain from doing so? I can't work it out.

 

I did some research and saw this has happened to a number of people recently at the same place.

 

I think it’s clear that they have not followed the timeline as set out in schedule 4 of Protection of Freedoms Act as they sent the NTK at the wrong time. Does the fact that VCS has not followed the procedural requirement mean that my parent’s do not have keeper’s liability? Also, I read in other blogs that VCS (and Excel) do not usually rely on PoFA. So what do they rely upon?

 

If we ignore the NTKs is the likely option that VCS would eventually issue court claims? Are my (old, risk-averse, one foreign, one English) parents then able to pay the £100 charge (per car) at that time so avoiding court?

 

Please understand that I think VCS are a bunch of crooks and would personally be able to take them on but I need to be mindful of my stressed, old parents during a global pandemic have different tolerance to risk than I do. I’ve done lots of reading on different threads & blogs but I’m still not quite sure what their different options are.

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to read!   

 

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement? 22/12/2020
 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? No
 

If you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it, suitably redacted. Has there been a response? N/A
 

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........DONT ! seek advice on your topic first.

 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

Yes, received early
 

What date is on it 29/12/2020
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Yes
 

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

4. If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] N/A
  

5 Who is the parking company? Vehicle Control Services Limited
 

6. where exactly did you park? Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip, HA4 0LN

 

NTKs+Photos.pdf

[dx100uk]

they do not appeal

they do not pay nor respond.

 

await if/when any letter of claim is sent for either one. then comeback here

 

 

[EL21]

Hi there, thank you for your quick reply! Would you like me to put it one pdf even though it's two different cars and two NTKs addressed to two different people? I didn't want to confuse anyone.

[dx100uk]

might be wise to have a thread for each then.

 

dx

 

[EL21]

Hi dx, thanks for your reply - I'll create a thread for each then. Whilst I have your attention, do you know why they took it off the windshield? And do you know if VCS is not relying upon PoFA, what would they be relying on? 

[dx100uk]

please dont obscure times and dates!

 

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, EL21 said:

Also, I read in other blogs that VCS (and Excel) do not usually rely on PoFA. So what do they rely upon?

They rely on lying & bullying, and above all on your average motorist's ignorance of the law.  They get debt collectors to send out letters saying the amount has increased from £100 to £150 or similar, even though debt collectors have no power as it's not their debt, but hey, a lot of people don't know the law, panic and give in.

 

They start court cases even though they have no hope of winning and then if the case is defended they discontinue at the last minute - after all it only costs them £25 and presumably enough people are scared of the idea of going to court and cough up.

 

I appreciate your parents are "old and risk averse" but in the end it will boil down to whether they prefer to hand over £200 they don't owe to thieves for peace of mind or to fight these conmen.

 

However, they don't have to decide "tomorrow"!  They are at the start of the process of VCS sending out their daft letters, they're a million miles away from court at the moment, there's plenty to time to decide how to fight back and what they want to do.

[dx100uk]

if court at all. poss years away,

[EL21]

Hi FTMDave,

 

Thanks for your message! Yeah I’m definitely trying to convince my parents that morally they shouldn’t part with £120 (£60 each car) to those thieves, which is why I’m trying to inform myself as much as possible so I can explain it to them. Thanks for taking the time express your view!

 

I am still trying to understand on what legal basis, if they don’t use PoFA, they can send the NTKs? What do they say when they get to court?

 

[FTMDave]

I see you've been reading up on the court process (well done!)

 

To give an absurd example, say I know your address and I write to you and say I find your username offensive and I want £100 compensation.  I could do this, anyone can write letters to anyone. 

 

After I send you a Letter Before Claim.

 

Next I go onto the MCOL site and start court action against you.  It only costs 25 quid.

 

Were you to defend the claim, I could invent a Witness Statement saying you knew I was allergic to the numbers 21 and that the letters EL were the initials of an ex-girlfriend and you were deliberately trying to upset me. 

 

All this absurdity would then be blown out of the water once an unbiased judge got to look at the case, but, sadly, many people afraid of the court process would have already given in by that point.  That's what the fleecers aim at.

 

As we see you're a researcher (spot on!), have a look at our "PPC Successes" thread at the top of the page.  Start from the last page and look for VCS and Excel threads, with "Discontinued" or "Won" in the title, and you'll see the bilge they come up with in court, which 99 times out of 100 is booted into touch by the judge.

 

BTW, in case your parents are worried about court, (a) as dx says even if VCS did court it could potentially be years away, and (b) were it to happen under COVID, then courts are having telephone hearings, yes, a simple phone call, nothing intimidating at all.  But that's miles down the line. 

[EL21]

Hi FTMDave,

 

That's super helpful, thank you for your analogy! 

 

Please may I ask a few more questions? I know there is not NTK liability through PoFA because they did not conform with procedure. But I saw that VCS relies on contract law.

 

In the event VCS did

a) pursue this,

b) within 6 years,

c) actually turn up to court 

 

- how would they go about saying a contract was even formed?

One car was not parked in between the lines which does breach the terms but the terms are only applicable if a contract was formed.

 

And through privity of contract, a contract could only be formed between driver and VCS.

Would a county court judge / VCS ask my parents if they were the driver?

Surely they wouldn't be able to have filmed the driver on site.

 

I can't imagine how they prove who the driver was, except to ask directly?

And presumably, leaving the car park (against the terms) is impossible to prove?

 

Finally, the ultimate risk is only for £125 per car, right? (£100 charge + £25 court fee) because I saw in a number of threads they try to add £50 for added solicitor or debt collection costs but I saw that's just sneaky tactics and not legal.

 

Thank you so so much for all your time & effort in answering my questions. I'm nearly ready to present the case to my parents of why they shouldn't pay these chancers!

[dx100uk]

typically PPC court claim run to around £180 - £250 

no PPC can film the driver nor are they allowed to. against GDPR

as its not for them to enforce reverse trespass they cant only the land owner can.

 

as for directly being asked who was driving, that immaterial in a way.

even if the driver were named who's to say the contract was broken, which it wasn't or it is even enforceable.

 

there are numerous brook retail threads here 

get reading them.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

VCS would argue that the T&Cs of using the car park were set out on their signs, and that is what formed a contract with your parents.

 

You're absolutely right that they are too lazy/stupid/arrogant to use the POFA correctly and that is a good weapon to use against them.  A few minutes ago Slaughter64 beat them in court on this very point.  The thread should be right next to yours.

 

The risk is £100 + £25 claim fee + £25 hearing fee.  Sometimes Simon employs a solicitor to lose him his court cases, sometimes he loses them himself - in the former case he can claim £50 legal costs.  You're right that VCS will make up £60, which forum regular Ericsbrother nicknames the Unicorn Food Tax, but that is Simon trying it on.  Recently we had someone who unfortunately lost in court against VCS, but the judge specifically disallowed the Unicorn Food Tax part of the claim.

 

Is this car park near you and/or your parents, and so is it possible for someone to go back and take photos galore of the area your parents parked in, plus the signs?  I too noticed one (not both) of the cars not parked exactly within the lines, but that is not why VCS issued their invoices.  Either they are simply lying, or your parents accidentally parked say in the staff only part of the car park due to the rubbish signage.  It would be very useful to find out.

[EL21]

Hi Dx- I absolutely read the other Brook Retail threads - I even commented on them so that I could follow. I also called Pets at Home, who are at the retail park, and they said there's been an uptake in complaints about parking charges to them (unfortunately, they cannot cancel the fine) so there might be more threads coming in the future...

 

 

Hi FTMDave - I'll check out Slaughter84's thread, thanks for flagging. The Unicorn Food Case also made me giggle. Yes, I wanted to highlight the white car being outside the box and whether that was relevant to the: 'Parked in Restricted / Prohibited Area.' In my original post, I asked what does 'Parked in Restricted / Prohibited Area' even mean, but I gather from you it does not refer to the car park itself, but rather something like staff parking / bin refuge / blue badge etc? I will see if I can do some recon and report back! Thank you 

Edited January 6, 2021 by EL21
Accidental emoji

[dx100uk]

Fine??

 

DX

[FTMDave]

If you look at Cagedbird's thread, you'll see that Simple Simon got another court humiliation today.

 

In this case the court hearing didn't even take place, the judge looked at Simon's claim and unceremoniously chucked it in the bin.

 

[EL21]

Hi FTMDave - that is good news!

 

My parents have agreed to let me have a crack at Simple Simon (after seeing your comments) so won't be paying the NtKs.

 

Still need to get down to Ruislip to take some photos of the parking position - will attempt to do so at the weekend.

 

Have a good week!

[lookinforinfo]

I am not sure that VCS are not using POFA.

They do state at the bottom of the front page of each PCN that they will hold the keeper responsible for the "debt" if they have not been told of the driver's details.

 

They are supposed to include the PoFA schedule 4 Act as well.

But their PCNs have informed motorists of the risk they run.

I have not seen Judges rule on whether the lack of mention of the Act is crucial to their claim.

 

Dx100uk has asked that you include the dates that VCS have put on their PCNs.

This is because the PCNs have to arrive at motorists homes within a period of time.

 

Now to answer your main question -windscreen tickets -also known as Notice to Driver.

The driver has 28 days to pay the ticket and VCS cannot write to the keeper before that, advising them of the PCN,

 

how and how long they have to pay it before they themselves become liable for the charge even though they were not driving at the time the PCN was issued providing PoFA was complied with.

 

If it is not possible to place a windscreen [perhaps because of ANPR for example] then the keeper is informed, the Notice to Keeper, which advises them there has been an infringement and needs to be paid and advising them that if the charge is not paid within a certain time then the keeper once again becomes responsible, providing that PoFA has been complied with.

 

In your parent's case there appears to have been a PCN placed on their windscreens which means that a NTK should not be sent for 29 days at a minimum.

 

Instead they have removed the PCNs from the windscreen and sent out NTKs within 14 days which means VCS stand the chance of getting paid that much quicker. 

 

They are trying to circumnavigate the Law.

Your photographs do not show PCNs on the windscreens and I take it that whoever the drivers of both cars were, there were no PCNs in those cars?

[EL21]

Hi there,

 

I filled in the questionnaire with the dates. So the date of infringement was 22/12/2021 and the NtK is dated 29/12/2020, so as you said, it is not within the timeframe as laid out in schedule 4 PoFA. My understanding is that PoFA must be procedurally complied with to apply? In this case, I don't believe liability can arise under PoFA.
 

I added in comment 2 of this thread the additional photos that they supplied via myparkingcharge website. It was only here that was the PCN on the window screen. The PCNs was likely removed by whomever issued the tickets. There are a few threads / comments with the same facts at the same retail park. I see that you said that it was removed perhaps to be paid more quickly - hadn't thought of that.

 

The contravention was for 'Parked in Restricted / Prohibited Area' - this doesn't mean the car park as a whole, right? Do you know what's meant by that? I said to FTM Dave that I would go take pics of the site - hopefully this upcoming weekend. 

 

Thank you for taking the time to read the thread!

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry I missed your questionnaire.

The PCNs could be PoFA compliant depending on how you handle the NTD.

If VCS say there were no PCNs on your windscreen then it could be compliant.

If there were PCNs then no way is it compliant.

 

I haven't been to that car park since early last year and was very careful then not to fall out with the rules as VCS are crooks and had no wish to have to deal with them and their lies threats etc. for months on end.

 

I have no idea where or even if there is a restricted or prohibited area.

Looking at the white VW it seems as if it is straddling two places which of course is a rule breaker if the area was within a parking area but that was not what the PCN states. So perhaps there is a restricted area.

 

When you go to take photos please make sure that you get a legible picture of the entrance sign- I seem to remember that their T&Cs were not there just an advisory that you were entering a private car park. Then get a legible picture of their T&Cs and any other sign that differs from that one. It is a free car park so there wont be a payment meter unless it has changed since. If so please get a photo of the meter.

 

As your parents are not too sure about carrying you could try complaining to your local Trading Standards office advising them about the vanishing PCN  as you appear not to be alone. It is a scam the way they do it as they are ignoring the Law. 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

56 minutes ago, EL21 said:

Parked in Restricted / Prohibited Area

 

effectively it means many things - all really mean nothing.

typically as it was a windscreen PCN it will mean you do not have a permit to park in that space.

 

EL21 eh? used to use those valves..

[EL21]

Hi! No worries at all - I’m sure you read a lot of threads.

 

So in the additional pictures (in comment 2 of this thread if you want to check!), there is a PCN on the windscreen. So I’m not sure how they could argue there wasn’t, if it’s in their own picture?

 

Yes about the contravention - I had thought the same about the car being outside the lines. But if the PCN says it’s for prohibited area then  they can’t later say it’s for something else, like leaving the terrain or parking outside the lines etc, surely?

 

It is indeed still a free car park. Thank you for the advice about the pictures - I’ll be sure to get them from those angles!

 

Oh thanks Dx100 - (I didn’t see your message until after I’d sent my reply to lookinforinfo!)

[EL21]

Hi everyone,

 

Last week, two letters (per car) arrived in close succession: one a 'Parking Charge Notice - Final Reminder' and the other 'Demand for Payment' which included additional £60 debt collection costs bringing the 'outstanding balance' to £160 per car. I noticed the final reminder was dated 27/01/2021 but it didn't arrive until last week.

 

I tried to attach all the letters in one document but it was too large so here is the final reminder.

 

 

 

Here find attached the demand for payment.

 

I also managed to get some pictures of the signage and where the cars were parked. They weren't in any disabled bays or staff parking or anything similar, I only spotted a 'fire assembly point' sign but if you weren't allowed to park there then they shouldn't have parking spots there.

 

Do you have a recommendation on what I should now?

Demand for Payment Combined (later date).pdf Photos of Site1.pdf

Final Reminder Combined (earlier date).pdf

[dx100uk]

On 05/01/2021 at 21:45, dx100uk said:

they do not appeal

they do not pay nor respond.

 

await if/when any letter of claim is sent for either one. then comeback here

 

 

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..

 

well done on the photo's

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

Forget what I said about PoFA compliant on my previous post. I was thinking they had parked further up the road where the cinema is located and it is all cameras there. 

 

Both cars clearly had PCN's attached to the windscreen which means there should not have ben a NTK sent out until at least 29 days later. therefore PoFA does not apply so they can only pursue your parents as the driver not the keeper.

 

In addition that signage at the entrance should lay out their T&Cs. It doesn't. It says you can park for 1hour 30 minutes which I assume means it is free and their T&Cs are in the car park. So what they offered was an invitation to treat not a contract.

 

Also their PCN should have included arrival and leaving times. Without that there is no clear indication of how long both cars were parked. There is at least a ten minute grace period which the PCN by not recording both times, falls foul of. They have to prove that you stayed longer than ten minutes and they cannot do it