Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
    • Hi Mango,   Please don't post in large blocks of text as it's far harder to read. Spacing added for you in the post above.   Please give brief answers to UncleB's Q's above so we can better assess your case, thanks.
    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

VCS/PFS ANPR PCN - Nicol Street, Kirkcaldy Scotland - Demand Before Court Action


Recommended Posts

I have read alot of cases surrounding private Parking Companies and the fact that in Scotland the owner is not responsible for the fine, the driver is so to just ignore. However I believe this changed at the end of 2019 in Scotland and now the owner can be held liable due to a change in the freedom of information act? 

 

Can someone advise? I have received the "Demand for payment before court action letter"  (Date of alleged offence October 2020)  

 

What us the likeness of this company pursuing this though a court? Surely this would cost way over the £160 and would be written off...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Haribo79 changed the title to PRIVATE PARKING COMPANY Nicol Street, Kirkcaldy Scotland - Demand Before Court Action - Pollock Fairbridge Schiavone solicitors

It is not a fine

as for the supposed changes

to date we,ve seen no instances of if it does actually change your position, nor that it did change anything north of the border

 

there is still no such thing as trespass in Scotland..

 

it will be interesting to see what their letter of claim will be too as the pre action protocol doesn't apply either

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

Thanks for your quick response!  If they do decide to take this to a small claims court, would there be a chance to pay before this happened (without accruing further charges?)  

 

It's my parents ticket and they don't do well with scaremongering. I reckon it will go away but I need to reassure them! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't find a lost scottish court claim for a speculative invoice...

likewise i haven't seen any gauge of an increase in PPC's issuing court claims in scotland since the much trumpeted POFA changes in Scotland - if they even happened or changed anything

 

it pers concerns mea bit  more as you say you've read up....focussing on POFA..

that you still appear not to have understood the very 1st basic principle of PPC things ..they are not FINES.

 

if they did get sheriff officers to issue a claim, and again there is no data to indicate any increase at all in them doing so, bar a handful of cases you can count on one hand in the years before, there would be plenty of chances to fold .

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 so we can see what jurisdiction the PPC thinks they are going to claim under, who is the parking Company, as if English they usually mess up completely with invoices  for a breach of their terms in a car park they infest in Scotland.

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

The company name is Vehicle Control Services Ltd. The demand for payment received mentions a court case rather than sheriff officers.  

Edited by Haribo79
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah that explains it Simple Simon conflates English and Scottish Law at will, It would be very silly of Simon to sue in an English Court for a Scottish  car park  or use English process in Scotland.

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to VCS/PFS ANPR PCN - Nicol Street, Kirkcaldy Scotland - Demand Before Court Action

very well known carpark here

 

Programmable Search Engine (google.com)

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

Is this car park local to you?  If so, it would be good if you could go back and take photos of the signage.

 

The last time someone did so we discovered that Simple Simon had been so stupid as to put details of two different companies on the signs, which would make it impossible for the motorist to know which company they were entering into a contract with.

 

It would be useful to know if the signage is still pants.

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

PCN Charge  - NTK received on 26th January for, “illegal” parking on the  Nicol Street Car Park for 11 minutes on 19th January, (having done so on the understanding that the car parks had been made free due to the COVID-19).

I noticed a similar event and correspondence regarding the same car park in June last year and the advice given was to ignore the, “fine”. However I can’t find the correspondence again and wondered if the advice was followed and how it turned out? 

 

Nicol Street Car Park Again - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just posted this on Bill Stewart's thread as both of you share a common PCN and crook [VCS}.

 

The bad news is that Scotland passed the Transport Bill in 2019 which included making the keeper responsible if certain things are in order.{ Thank you Nicola} The good news I think, is that all the signs are in the name of Excel, so still sit on your hands. 

 

So if you could get photos of the sign at the entrance to the car park plus other signs inside the car park and on the payment meter we will then know the involvement of Excel and VCS. They are both separate companies so only one of them will have the contract with the landowner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i know it has not been enacted yet.

since oct2019 there has been no flood of SPC scottish court claims at all looking at court rolls.

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 went by this https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2019/17/enacted

Transport (Scotland) Act 2019

2019 asp 17

The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 10th October 2019 and received Royal Assent on 15th November 2019

 

I agree one would have expected a rash of claims. I haven't seen a copy of what the PCN should contain which could be the reason for the holdup but the Act is very similar to PoFA. AnyPCNs issued before 10th October will be ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have made the relevant part a PDF

this is now in the stickies of this forum.

 

Scottish POFA Equiv enacted oct 2019 - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

  • Like 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 enquired about Sec 95 of the Transport Bill with a friend who is a lawyer last year, and was told that part of the Bill hadn't been enacted at the time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't apply it retrospectively then.

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

As far as I'm aware (as I can't find anything online) the Scottish Government hasn't issued any guidelines to go with the Act yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct forget about it.

 

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

I am so sorry that I got that wrong.

I read that the Bill had been passed and enacted.

There was nothing about everything just about from Section 90 onwards still had not been approved.

 

Of course I should have seen the remarks above Section 90 in the Act when I read it.

There is does state that the provisions are still prospective but I had been more interested in reading the terms of the Act and totally missed the wording above.

 

I hope that it didn't upset you too much when you read my first post about it and thank to McNato for clarifying the situation for all of us.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help everyone.

 

I have asked my parents to take photos of the signs/ticket machine as I am not local.

 

So the amendment has been made to the act but it's not been passed yet it that correct?

 

Also this charge was issued on the 9 October but the Notice to keeper dated is 28 October (outwith 14 days) would this be a reason to write off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No PoFA does not apply in Scotland so there is no necessity for them to issue an NTK within 14 days.

 

In England when their NTK is outside the 14 days it does not cancel the alleged debt.

What it does do is to prevent them holding the keeper responsible for the action of the driver.

Exactly the same as in Scotland at the moment.

 

So be careful not to admit who the driver was and the easiest way to do that is not to answer any of their threats and demands. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...