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

[lookinforinfo]

One of your parents could write to the DVLA explaining that both of them received NTD's on their cars which had vanished by the time they returned to their cars. However they then received the NTKs a week later rather than the stipulated 29 days which would seem to suggest that VCS knew the NTD's had been removed. And ask them to investigate this breach of the regulations. You should include photographs of the windscreen tickets. This may deter VCS from taking any further action.

[VCSMugging]

27060/APP/2003/1105 looks to be the original planning application for the whole HA4 0LN site as it is today but there are no supporting docs on the portal.  None of the subsequent planning applications, which do have supporting docs, mention anything about PPC signage or parking restrictions.

 

Placement of the entrance sign could be construed as applying to the whole HA4 0LN site, shops and showroom, which then might mean the car park itself doesn't have an entrance sign.

 

There are 5 signs inside the car park but only the one nearest the entrance has an additional privacy notice stuck on, in miniscule lettering, to say images may be taken of person(s).  Presumably this is trying to legitimise any use of driver images or at least threaten the possibility of such evidence.

 

Dacorum and councils use Contravention 81, Parking in a restricted area of a car park, as not parking in a hatched area or any space that is signed as prohibited.  There are no hatched area's and disabled bays aside, there are no bays with additional or prohibit signs.  For anyone straddling bays, it could be argued that there are no bay marking's at all as the brickwork now look to be the same colour with the accumulated dirt.

[dx100uk]

the above in bold is important

they can't do this, they are not allowed to enforce walk away reverse trespass garbage.  you can't leave the car park you parked in to visit other shops

[EL21]

Hi everyone - thank you for your replies! 

 

Lookinforinfo - that's a good idea. I'll definitely consider complaining to the DVLA.

 

vcsmuggings - great name, and good point about the brickwork! presumably, at some point, vcs will have to say what they mean by 'restricted / prohibited area' but good to know what councils consider it to be.

 

dx100uk - thanks for the info that reverse trespass isn't enforceable. (though i think you meant you can leave the car park!)

 

Aside from that, I'll do as dx100uk says and update the thread if a letter of claim comes through! Have a good rest of your day.

[EL21]

Just for a future paper trail: a final final demand 

Final Final Demand 2.pdf

Final Final Demand 1.pdf

[dx100uk]

On 24/02/2021 at 14:07, EL21 said:

dx100uk - thanks for the info that reverse trespass isn't enforceable. (though i think you meant you can leave the car park!)

 

it's called reverse trespassing ...

they can't do anything because you left the car park (reverse trespassing  .. you left the area not trespassed upon it) 

and they most certainly can't trespass you for entering other property outside the car park..

 

they are not the land owners upon either site..

[EL21]

Thank you! 

[EL21]

Hi Everyone,

 

Two letter(s) before claim arrived today (although allegedly posted a week ago). One for each car.

 

I think this is the time I respond, right?

 

1)      I presume I don’t fill in their return form and can just send a letter to their Litigation & Debt department.

2)      I will, of course, send two letters in return (one for each car) - should I change the wording for each reply or shall I just copy & paste?

3)      Do I really call him Simple Simon? 

4)      Do I post it soon or should I leave it another two weeks (so within the 30 days)?

 

I’ve had a go at a reply – what do you think:

 

‘Dear Simple Simon,

In response to your letter before claim (PCN Reference Number xxxxx), you have not complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedom Act 2012.  As you know, given it is your day job to con people into paying bogus charges, all elements must have been fulfilled to establish keeper liability. It has been a choice of yours not to comply and therefore I consider this matter finished.

Regards,

[Insert parents name]’

 

Any feedback?

Letter before Claim redacted compressed.pdf

[EL21]

(Just re-reading their letter and I'm wondering whether I've been tricked into thinking I need to reply - is a 'Letter Before Claim' is another way of saying 'Letter of Claim' ?)

[FTMDave]

Yes, it's the same thing, you do need to reply and show Simon you would be big trouble and would cost him if he did do court.

[EL21]

Hi FTM Dave! 

 

Happy to hear from you - is what I wrote above to send okay, do you think?

 

[FTMDave]

To answer your questions.

 

1.  Show complete contempt for their procedures.  They're not the council or the police.  ignore their silly forms.

2.  It's not essential, but I think it would be better to write very different letters.  If Simon connects the two cases (same address, same "offence", same day & time, same place) it might make him more likely to do court.  The second letter could maybe ridicule the signage, for example, and not mention POFA.

3.  Yes!  It's fun to insult him.  Plus he may cotton on to the nickname being associated with CAG.  Caggers have a stupendous record of hammering Simon in court.

4.  For the same reason as (2), I would send one letter now and the other in a fortnight.

 

What you've written is fine but I would make it slightly longer and say you will go for an unreasonable costs order if Simon is stupid enough to do court.  It''s hitting Simon in the wallet which will put him off. 

 

[EL21]

Thanks for your response FTM Dave! Okay, I'll have another crack at it tomorrow and post version 2 then. Thanks for your help - I definitely feel way more confident about this then when I originally started this thread...

[EL21]

I have been thinking more and more about the polo (small car).

 

The contravention is allegedly for 'parking in a restricted / prohibited area'.

 

The terms on the sign says: ‘No parking or waiting on double yellow lines, hatched areas, roadways, raised kerbs, pedestrian walkways, grass, doorways, entrances or exits.’

 

I do not see any evidence of that in any of the photos.  Where the car is parked is not a disabled bay, it's not staff parking, it's not a loading bay, it wasn't parked on hatched lines. The *only* thing is that it's a fire assembly area, but as far as I'm aware that's not a problem. I'm struggling to see, in the event a court decided to a) ignore pofa, b) proved a contract existed, then c) what is the breach?

 

If my above is correct - what is the downside of saying 'go ahead, sue me?'

 

If they were to suddenly try scattergun approach - I just don't see what they could say is the breach - they haven't said it's for leaving the site, and in any case dx100 said that's reverse trespass isn't possible.

 

So based off the facts and pictures, what could they possible sue for? Right now I'm living with my parents, I have time and I don't want this hanging over my sweet mama's head for the next 6 years. So instead of a snotty letter, do I just say see you in court? What are the downsides?

 

 

[dx100uk]

quite usual for most ppc's to claim just any ole 'something' -  as 99% of joe public think these are fines etc etc. and don't care 'i didn't do that' - they blindly pay up.

 

let the judge decide 

19 minutes ago, EL21 said:

- what is the downside of saying 'go ahead, sue me?'

 

 

 

[EL21]

Are there any downsides / things I might not have considered specifically for the polo?

[dx100uk]

for the minute thats not important.

the important thing is you must reply to the PAPLOC within the 30 day time frame, as it could be used as a browny point against you should you fail ......in the judges eye.

 

the trick with replying is not to give anything away upon how you might defend should it ever get to court.

[EL21]

Okay, will be taking FTM Dave's advice and posting one letter this week(end) and one letter later (within the 30 days). So I post it without a signature, second class stamp and with free proof of postage, right?

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter One (white car): This one was parked outside the lines so would rather didn't make it to court.

 

Dear Simple Simon,

I am writing to respond to your letter threatening court proceedings in relation to PCN Reference Number XXXX.

You have not complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedom Act 2012. As you know, given it is your day job to con people into paying bogus charges, all elements must be fulfilled to establish keeper liability. You have made the decision to not comply with the aforementioned Act, either intentionally or through incompetence. Either way keeper liability has not arisen, and I consider this matter finished.

If, however, you unwisely decide to pursue this in court, then do bear in mind that I will go for an unreasonable costs order.

Regards,

[Insert name white car keeper]

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter Two (small polo) this one I can't see a breach so happy to go to court.

 

Litigation Department,

 

PCN Number: xxxxx

I have no intention of paying your speculative invoice. I reviewed the contents of your letter and the pictures that you previously supplied, and it is clear that your claim is without merit. A judge, or indeed anyone with a notion of common sense, would see that you are pursuing a nonsensical claim. You really did try to chance it here, didn’t you?

I am confident that your unmeritorious claim will be looked upon unfavourably, so much so that I very much look forward to seeing you in court.

Best wishes,

[Insert name of polo keeper]

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Any feedback ?

 

Thank you!

Edited March 19, 2021 by EL21

[lookinforinfo]

On car one then you could say that by photographing a PCN on their windscreen then sending an NTK within 14 days is in beach of PoFA and you will be claiming costs from them should they take you to Court.

[EL21]

Thank you lookinforinfo!

 

Okay final draft of snotty letter:

 

Letter One (white car): This one was parked outside the lines so would rather didn't make it to court.

 

Dear Simple Simon,

I am writing to respond to your letter threatening court proceedings in relation to PCN Reference Number XXXX.

You have not complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedom Act 2012. As you know, given it is your day job to con people into paying bogus charges, all elements must be fulfilled to establish keeper liability. You have made the decision to not comply with the aforementioned Act, either intentionally or through incompetence. Either way keeper liability has not arisen, and I consider this matter finished.

If, however, you unwisely pursue this to court then do note that by photographing the PCN on the windscreen of the car, and then sending the Notice to Keeper within 14 days, you have breached the PoFA and I will claim costs from you. Additionally, I will go for an unreasonable costs order.

Regards,

[Insert name white car keeper]

 

If anyone has additional comments / feedback then let me know, otherwise I'll print and post from the post office on Monday morning!

 

[FTMDave]

Two suggestions.

 

I would change "you have breached the POFA" to "you haven't been bothered to follow the POFA".  They are not obliged to follow the POFA, they can do what they want.  It's just that that means they can only pursue the driver, not the keeper, and they don't know who that is.

 

Relying solely on their non-respect of POFA seems a bit weak to me.  How about, just before "Regards", adding "Your case is pants for about a hundred other reasons, all of which I have noted in a nice tidy list ready to show the judge".

 

If no-one else has suggestions get the letter off tomorrow with a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

 

[EL21]

Both great points - will amend now. Thanks, FTM Dave.
 

If anyone else has any more points or suggestions, let me know. Otherwise posting it tomorrow - thanks again, everyone! 

[EL21]

On 24/02/2021 at 12:02, VCSMugging said:

27060/APP/2003/1105 looks to be the original planning application for the whole HA4 0LN site as it is today but there are no supporting docs on the portal.  None of the subsequent planning applications, which do have supporting docs, mention anything about PPC signage or parking restrictions.

 

 

Hi @VCSMugging - can I check which portal you mean - do you mean planning.hillingdon.gov.uk? I can't see the subsequent planning apps. 

 

From looking at other threads, I think this is relevant because it's illegal signage and so this unlawful under Town and Country Planning Act. This unlawful element voids a contract. Have I understood that correctly?

[lookinforinfo]

It should render the contract null but it doesn't appear to do in paractice in Court. Go figure. However  parking companies in order to qualify to get data from the DVLA must comply with all legislation relating to parking and to comply with their Code of Practice. 

So if you tackle them from this angle and question their right to get DVLA info. you may get the Judge agreeing with you. Especially if you can get other details where they have not complied with legislation or been banned by DVLA before. It puts them on the back foot with the Judges as they tend to take a dim view of them not adhering to the law.

[EL21]

Thanks @lookinforinfofor your explanation.

 

On Wednesday, I'm going to post the second snotty letter. I've tried to go for a different tone of message:

 

Litigation Department,

PCN Number: xxxxx

 

I have no intention of paying your speculative invoice. I reviewed the contents of your letter and the pictures that you previously supplied, and it is clear that your claim is without merit. A judge, or indeed anyone with a notion of common sense, would see that you are pursuing a nonsensical claim. You really did try to chance it here, didn’t you?

 

I am confident that your unmeritorious claim will be looked upon unfavourably by a judge, so much so that I very much look forward to seeing you in court.

 

Although, as an aside, do note, if you continue with this claim, I will happily inform the ICO that you have accessing the DVLA without reasonable cause and I will sue you for breaching the GDPR. Moreover, I will also happily inform the local MP and trading standards office of the deceitful tactics your men on the ground are deploying.

 

A quick ring around the local shops shed light on how many problematic PCNs their customers have been complaining about – I would put to you that when unhappy customers contact the shops and it hurts their pockets, they would also be inclined to act on how your company operates.

 

If you knew what was best, you would halt your action because you are wasting your own time, and more importantly, you are wasting mine. However, if you insist on continuing with this nonsense, then I very much look forward to giving you a proper punting in court!

 

Best wishes,

[Insert name of polo keeper]

 

Any feedback?

 

P.S @FTMDave- I know you said to say something about signage but I wasn't really sure what I could say because I thought they were okay?