Jump to content


VCS no stopping charge notice Bristol airport


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Fab thanks. It was VCS themselves, their debt and litigation dept apparently 

 

 

 

 

Edited by PersonS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  They usually use a solicitor.  Must have changed their strategy yet again.  I asked as we usually send the snotty letter to both the solicitors and the PPC, but here there is the only PPC.

 

I would suggest a couple of additions/replacements in red.

 

Send it off in the next few days and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

 
 

Re: PCN no.XXXXX

 

Responding to your letter of claim to make it clear no payment will be forthcoming.  You must really be Simple Simon if you’re not aware it’s a legal requirement to stop at a zebra crossing when someone is crossing and that this doesn’t constitute parking.  I was not prepared to commit murder to obey your silly signs and no judge would expect me to!

 

Even if this wasn’t the case the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4 states that Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory byelaws and is specifically excluded from keeper liability.

 

I see you couldn’t resist adding on unicorn food tax, you really know how to make a bad case even better.  Look up section 9 of the government Code of Practice dumbos.

 

Please be aware that if you persist in taking this to court, I will be claiming unreasonable costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g), which I will spend on well-deserved break after having to deal with this nonsense.

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Repeat your snotty letter.

 

The owner makes no odds, it's the registered keeper on the V5C that might get a claimform.

 

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

Sometimes one has to man up 

 

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

He is involved now whether he wants to be or not.

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

We see loads & loads of VCS cases.  When Simple Simon has decided on court then everything is generally pretty fast.  Letter of Claim.  Snotty letter reply.  Claim form.

 

Yet in your case Simon is continuing the correspondence.  Methinks he isn't too confident.

 

We have two other VCS-zebra crossing cases and in neither has Simon done court.

 

None of this is a guarantee.  VCS are an extremely litigious company.  It is still possible a claim form will end up on your mat.

 

Personally I would do nothing now.  You've already sent the snotty letter.  You told Simon to put up or shut up,.  Yours is not the next move.

 

As for your husband.  Well if he didn't want to be involved then he should either have paid or named you as the driver in April.  He is the registered keeper of the vehicle and if VCS issue a claim form it will be against him.

  • Like 3

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

Posted (edited)

PersonS I am so sorry to have misled you about the PCN being compliant. It isn't for several reasons. I do not know what I was thinking about when I told you it was ok on post 7.

 

t

The PCN is wrong on several counts. In the Protection of Freedom act 2012 in Schedule 4 Section 9 [f] it states

"

)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

 

The VCS PCN says nothing like that in their "Important Note" and it should be near enough ver batim  to the Act I quoted.  It doesn't comply with the Act because where the car stopped was not in a car park but on a road that is maintained by the Council and therefore not relevant land for the purposes of the Freedoms Act.

 

What that means is the VCS are unable to transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper. So you are in the clear. So you can be as rude and cheeky as you want in your defence as you cannot be held liable.

 

Once again my apologies for getting it so wrong when I first saw your PCN. But at least you now know that you are not liable  for he PCN.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what LFI has said, I think that VCS themselves are ruling out using POFA to transfer liability to the keeper.

 

In their Important Information section VCS state that they "may pursue you (the Keeper) on the assumption that you were the driver".

 

There are plenty of defences against this assumption. Including the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 "Operators must not when pursuing a notice of parking charge presume that the keeper of a vehicle was the driver at the time of that vehicle breaching conditions leading to issue of a notice of parking charge."

Link to post
Share on other sites

VCS/EXCEL tend to not follow POFA, they had a spell until the County Court Judges caught on and tolchockd them of using inapplicable case to ground Keeper was Driver to get over their statement in their POC, the driver or keeper.

 

They would say they were relying on Elliott v Loake, a criminal case so inadmissible in a County Court Contract claim, and CPS v AJH Films, an employer employee issue both inapplicable.

 

Simon with his Excel hat here

 

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

Excel Parking Services Ltd v Mrs. Lynzi Evans Judge: DJ McKay Claim no: C8DP79CC  in the Cardiff Civil Justice Centre. Legal representati...

 

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

Thanks BN. Interesting pre-POFA background.

 

I can assure you that, in the fairly recent VCS case I am familiar with, they asserted that their PCN was POFA compliant (it wasn't). However, they did hedge their bets and also tried to assert that the keeper was probably the driver.

 

I do note that the notice in PersonS's case the notice wording is varied from what I have seen before. Firstly, the notice is just a Charge Notice rather than Parking Charge Notice. All references to Contravention Event/Time/Reason have been replaced. Furthermore, VCS don't refer to being able to pursue the keeper. VCS have also increased their unicorn food tax from £60 to £70.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes its good to compare and look what they are doing, but the premise is still there they contend Keeper is Driver, and will use old redundant cases to confuse and obfuscate especially if they screw up on POFA or don't follow it at all.

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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...