Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I am sure other will be along to assist so please be patient.   I can see where you are coming from as to any prospective buyer if they done checks on your car it would look like your car has been clocked due to the mileage discrepancy.   Now the Garage that done the MOT and recorded the incorrect mileage although they has said this was there error do you actually have that in writing that they have admitted it?   Anything you do with the garage that recorded the incorrect mileage you need to stay off the phone and put everything in writing as you need a paper trail of this.   Did you go through VOSA Complaints procedure due to the mileage error and get a decision for there examiner's assessment? (if so exactly what did there outcome state?)   If not IMO you need to write to that garage and ask why the incorrect mileage was recorded on your MOT after your (discussion/phone call on XX/XX/2022) where they admitted the incorrect mileage was recorded and how they are going to rectify this issue with VOSA.    You also need to send that specific Garage a Subject Access Request (SAR) (giving them all your vehicle details) asking for 'ALL DATA' the simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that data in whether it be written, email, recorded phone calls etc.   They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond only once they have acknowledged receipt of your SAR request, they may ask you to provide ID to confirm who you are which they are allowed to do.   As said please be patient others will be along to advise.
    • Hi   I have to agree with dx100uk on this any warranty given does not exceed your rights under The Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As for them stating this was a 'Private Sale' really the Trader sold this vehicle and you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   Consumer Right Act Legislation:  Consumer Rights Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK   Were you by any chance told you signed a legal agreement into a Private Sale where there are no returns or refunds?   Look at this review go down the webpage until you get to the very first one star review (15 Oct 20) and have a read of their response::   We Sell Any Auto | Car dealership in Preston | AutoTrader WWW.AUTOTRADER.CO.UK Browse all current We Sell Any Auto vehicles for sale. View contact details, customer reviews, services offered and more on We Sell Any Auto.   It may be helpful if you could post up in Multi PDF Format fully redacted the documents you signed for this car so we can see what you signed. Also have you put the cars registration into the Governments Check MOT to have a wee look at the Cars history: https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-history We Sell Any Auto Ltd   Registered Office Address: Brierley House Brierley Street, Ashton-On-Ribble, Preston, Lancashire, England, PR2 2AU   Company Number: 10485166   Company Status: Active   Incorporated: 17th November 2016   Company Type: Private Limited Company   Previous Company Names: Three Oaks Car Sales Limited -     17 Nov 2016 - 02 Dec 2019   Nature of Business: 45112 - Sale of used cars and light motor vehicles   Directors: Tom Brown (appointed 1st Dec 2019), Dan Carruthers (appointed 17th Nov 2016)   Companies House link: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10485166   Endole link: https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/10485166-we-sell-any-auto-ltd   Bizdb link: https://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/three-oaks-car-sales-limited-10485166/
    • Hmm sounds like they are covering for him especially as he opened door and walked in.  No need to report it just ask for advise re what they would class this as for your complaint.  Clearly he has broken the law. I have a post regarding dpd where he tried to push his way in to a neighbours house and demand that she is in the living room holdìng the parcel. Dpd are known for doing this sort of thing. I have made several complaints about them and there male staff trying to force the way into houses past females. One even tried it with me tho bad mistake as they thought l was alone. The guy could not see my 18 yr old Son upstairs, my partner coming threw from Kitchen and a friend at side of house. As soon as my partner and friend appeared he decided a picture on doorstep is fine despite our friend tecording the guy before he noticed him and the video being forwarded to dpd they have done nothing.  I know he still works for them as he delivered to me Tuesday.  You need to kick up a stink tell them you want a copy of the complaints procedure. Maybe even policys on driver behaviour. 
    • Sri Lanka's giant neighbour is emerging as one of its biggest providers of aid, after years of mistrust.View the full article
    • One of the things that could help your case is their first PCN to you. Could you please post it up as I think there will be at least one thing that would help in your defence.
  • Our picks

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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 203 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

As Monday is a Bank holiday, MCOL may still be playing up on Monday.

The defence at this stage is just a three line catch all so as not to alert them to your actual Witness Statement that comes later and the latter  is the full on knock them out of the ring defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to VCS 2*Vanishing Windscreen PCN's - now Claimform - Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip

I had a look late last night at the contract.


There is nothing that links GBR Phoenix to the actual land owner that is supposed to be Zurich. As GBR Phoenix are now in liquidation, one wonders who VCS have a contract with now.


On top of that, the signature of the GBR director is illegible and should therefore have been capitalised.  Very strange as FTMDave said that Elms would have sent you anything let alone a contract like that. On second thoughts, it is Elms.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've had a closer look at the VCS deed.


There is no link with Zurich via GBR Phoenix which seems fairly typical of VCS. The Director of GBR Phoenix Beard has signed the deed but not printed their name as required. GBR Phoenix Beard went into liquidation on 3rd October 2019 so that contract with VCS is dead as your PCNs were issued in 2020.


It is a strange contract insofar as it doesn't insist that VCS complies with legislation relating to parking and to adhere to their Code of Conduct. It still means that their lack of planning permission for the signage means that they do not comply with their Code of Conduct  despite them saying that they do.


They have also misled the DVLA who assume that VCS are compliant with the Code of Practice so should not be given motorists data. 


VCS know they are in breach so had no reason to pursue your parents and have thus breached their GDPR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I have been looking at the WS that VCS have sent. It is mercifully much shorter than many of his previous attempts that we have seen. I am surprised that Jake had the gall to say  in a letter of a half hearted offer to settle prior to a Court hearing  that VCS had a strong case. 

I have used the number system used by VCS to point out areas of contention in their WS but will jump about the WS a bit.

The Contract

There is no link between Zurich Assurance and GBR Phoenix Beard in the contract. Nor can I find any link between the online when putting the two names together.  The chain of command therefore between the Client and the contractor is not there. It stops at GBR Phoenix Beard and they went into liquidation in October 2019. In any event the contract had already ended in 2018 as it was a 3 year contract not a rolling contract.

The contract has not been validly executed as either the GBR director hs not been identified even assuming that it ws signed by a director as Mr Abrams was not a director. They need to be put to strict proof that there was ever a valid contract with proper links to Zurich assurance.. If there was, then put them to strict proof that there was a new contract as that one is out of date. If there is a new contract with GBR, was it still valid after the liquidation.


The Notice to Driver

There has not been one produced  and yet at point 32 in the WS the patrol officer observed the motorist apparently leaving the car park. If there was no PCN issued at that time  then the driver should have received an NTK within 14 days to be able to transfer liability to the keeper . Waiting till 28 days have elapsed means that transference of liability to the keeper has not been achieved as the timing of their  NTK was outside the  14 day limit.


The Notice to Keeper

It has already been established that the NTK was issued too late to be able to transfer the liability to the keeper. But there is a more serious fault with their PCN. From their photos, it is quite clear that the car was perfectly parked between the white lines.  As there is no requirement in the car park  for permits, the car could not therefore have been parked in either a restricted or prohibited area. So the incident never happened. Stating that leaving the car park area means the car is parked in a resticted area is laughable.

In addition the PCN is supposed to quote the period of time that the alleged breach occurs under PoFA. There is only one time mentioned so VCS are put to strict proof that the car remained in the car park for more than the ten minutes grace period allowed by the IPC Code of Conduct. If they cannot do that then their case should fail as they have no way to prove how long the car was there.


In any event the NTK was also invalid since the wording did not comply with either  PoFA Schedule 4 S8 2[ [f] or 9 2] [f] which is a further reason to prevent the transference of liability to the keeper.


Rest of the WS

8] No where on their T&Cs is there a contravention named "Parked in a resticted/ prohibited area". Even their photos confirm that the car was parked correctly .So as there was no breach for that situation, no offence was committed.

9] no contract can be formed on entering the car park. Under the IPC Code of Conduct  "Definitions" there is a ten minute grace period.

10] already stated that the reason for the PCN was not on their T&Cs

25] this appears to try and justify that Zurich is involved in the contract yet there is no link to prove their involvement.

31] walking off the premises may be a breach of their T&Cs providing their was a valid contract-was there? But that was not the breach on the PCN. In any event did the driver subsequently visit the shops and spend money there thus making them a valid customer.

39] The IPC states that membere must comply with all legal requirements-

                25.1 The Code complements the relevant legislation and related guidance, which will define the overall standard of conduct for all Operators. Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.

VCS seem unaware that they require permission from the local council for their signage under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations. They are also in breach of PoFA Schedule 4  S12


12(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

(3)The provision made under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, include provision—

(a)requiring notices of more than one kind to be displayed on any relevant land;

(b)as to the content or form of any notices required to be displayed; and

(c)as to the location of any notices required to be displayed.


So not only have they not complied with the fourth condition of PoFA which should render their case invalid on its own, they should not be allowed to be provided with driver information from the DVLA.

40] there are several reasons why VCS cannot transfer liability to the keeper

41] as the Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability, they are put to strict proof that the keeper was the driver.  {here EL21 you can mention how many people do have access to your parents car as well as other drivers with insurance for their own car are permitted to drive ypur parents cars albeit under 3rd party terms.

42] there  can be  no relevant obligation or relevant contract and you are asking the Court to reject their claim in its entirety as having completely no merit.

47] how the paralegal can sign the statement of truth knowing that the £60 debt recovery charge has been thrown out of Court time and time again Some Judges have gone as far as describing it as an abuse of process and others  complaining that it is an attempt at double recovery. 


Here is a  judge explaining why the charge is wrong

The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

48] point out to the Judge how unlikely it is that the WS authors never appear in Court. Their statements are close to the line and sometimes over the line of veracity. By not having to submit to questioning they never face the risk of a Judge accusing them of perjury. It is time this practice was stamped out.





  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Gick. I didn't see that at the time. You are quite right that it should be "ever" rather than "never." Actually I changed the sentence around after I had started it when never would have been correct. On looking at the sentence now it would have been better had I said "point out to the judge how unlikely it is for WS authors to appear in Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a strange reason to pursue a motorist for being parked in a restricted area when the actual breach [if it could ever be called a breach] was for walking off the premises. It's a bit like Gick perhaps when he was still in the Force arresting some one for theft but actually charging him with walking down the street which isn't an offence. 

On reflection, VCS did not have a reasonable cause to pursue you for the reason they did. The car was parked perfectly so it is a GDPR breach. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that VCS v Ibbotson was very funny. "Bring your toothbrush".


It's just a shame that VCS haven't been called out on further cases although yours could be one. What they are taking you to court on is not even on their T&Cs! I think you should state in your WS that they have breached your GDPR when bringing this case since the car was perfectly parked.


Tell the Court that the going rate for such a breach especially as VCS have averred that it was a breach should be in the region of £750 to £1000. Had they said you left the premises thus breaching their rules that would have been different but to pursue for a breach that isn't on their list is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if VCS don't bother to turn up for this one. 


Also do mention that you are not sure which WS from VCS you are meant to be following. But whichever one they use, neither of them produced a Notice to Driver so the NTK should have been delivered within 14 days if they wanted to rely on Keeper liability.  I haven't had a close look at Ambreen's WS compared to Walli's but it might be good to see where they differ and call them out and even better if their stories do not match.  One of their Statements of Truth is conceivably wrong.


On 31 and 32 of Ambreen's WS you could ask when was the IPC ever the arbiter in a Court of Law about what could be charged over and above the £100 agreed by PoFA. Indeed it is mainly because of the blatant greed of the IPC and BPA that the Government are quite rightly taking control of the CoP where both IPC and BPA have failed so lamentably to run themselves .


Ambreen witters on about VCS v HMRC 2013. what she failed to mention was that this was in a car park with permits being required. She also failed to mention the next line by Lord Justice Hallet-

  1. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did. Obviously in your case EL 21 VCS did NOT enter into a contract.
Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Walli at point 41] and Ambreen 14/15] make the erroneous point that they can rely on Keeper liability. Simon has got tweedlee and tweedledum working for him. They cannot. Nor can they assume that the keeper was the driver.


In this case it doesn't matter who was driving. The cars were  parked in the correct spots and there is no such parking restriction on their T&Cs as Parked in a Restricted or  prohibited area.


Both of them seem to think that there is a contractual clause when there isn't. The comparison here is a policeman arresting them for theft but then on the charge sheet accuse them of walking down the street! You couldn't make it up. It's a real dogs breakfast.

Edited by dx100uk
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

El21 in many cases debt collectors take on work form the carparking crooks on a no win no fee basis. If they do win , they charge  £60 or so. Obviously when you are taken to Court, it means that the debt collector has failed. Nevertheless the crooks still add the £60 to their bill for the debt collector. That is the abuse of process since you are being charged £60 for a debt that should not be due.


As far as parking time is concerned, councils normally allow 3 hours for parking where their are a large number of stores. Recently there have been some councils who are now granting shorter periods for smaller shopping areas. Most times the crooks do not bother applying for permission since it can take councils a few weeks to come to a decision to grant permission. That wastes the crooks earning period especially if the council come back and ask for changes to the agreement as that wastes another few weeks.


Here is another case you can quote  where the Judge claimed the charge would be a penalty.



  • Like 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well done El. Your parents should be proud of your work. I cannot believe that VCS will proceed with either case as there has been no breach. So I would include Jake's letter where they say that they believe they have a strong case to show VCS up for what they are. A bunch of crooks. I would also add that while there was no breach of their T&Cs it must mean that your parents had their GDPR breached by VCS and you understand that the current rate is at least £750 per breach and I would ask the Judge to charge  them for their breach.

Also I have a feeling that their large entrance sign was not there originally. Put them to strict proof of when it was erected. I am not even sure if their pole mounted one was their originally either. It isn't legible in any event when driving into the car park. And neither of the signs appear to coincide with their map. In fact that large sign doesn't seem to be there at all on the map.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Andyorch changed the title to VCS 2*Vanishing Windscreen PCN's - now Claimform - Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip ***Claim Dismissed***

Well done El21.


You put a lot of time and research into that WS which paid off.


Funny that the Judge only mentioned that the NTK was  not compliant with regard to the time period but not query that you had not breached their T&Cs so never liable for a PCN in the first place.


Pity that since had the Judge thrown out the case you would have a great chance of claiming several pounds from them through a breach of GDPR.


I have used that time period argument before as the reason for the NTK being non compliant and it hasn't been mentioned by the Judge  so you have to put everything in to your WS since the Judge only has to pick one of the  points in your favour to throw out the case. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...