Help needed - letter before claim VCS

[bass84]

I am looking for some advice regarding a parking charge and subsequent LBC received from VCS.

I have spent a long while looking through the various threads but I have a couple of specific questions regarding my specific case. Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere.

I received 2 x parking charges from VCS for ‘parking in a restricted area’. On both occasions I had paid in full for my parking but my front wheels were parked over an access road. The access road has no markings whatsoever, there is no signage at this supposed access road (the nearest sign was 12m away) there was insufficient lighting to see this very discreet cobbled access road there were no barriers delineating the access road from the parking area. I was also the only car in the car park at the time, so the violation is clearly accidental

I decided to appeal both charges following receipt of the second charge. VCS rejected the appeal and I have now submitted to IAS as a formality. It seems as though VCS do not consider the first fine as appealed due to the way their system works (you can appeal one charge at a time) and so are dealing with it as if I have not made any response.

I have now received an LBC (attached) from them (not their solicitors) and I was looking for some advice on how to respond. They have included a reply sheet which appears to allow me state that I “deny the debt” and provide a statement explaining why. Should I do this at this stage? I have also read that I should appeal to them asking for further information.

I have already appealed to the private landowner (numerous emails and phone calls) who has said he will “look into it” but
has stopped returning my emails - I don’t hold out much hope.

I am currently working very long shifts in the hospital due to the pandemic and this is an added stress. I did add this to my appeal to the landowner, IAS and VCS.

I am sorry if I have covered old ground but any help would be appreciated on how to respond to the LBC at this stage.

[ostell]

So have you got the original NTK and photos of the signs?


Better definition please, couldn't read the text on what you've pisted

[bass84]

Thank you for your prompt reply. Please find attached pictures of the original PCN hirer notification (NHS lease car), the final demand, more focussed images of their pictures and the photos I have taken of the lack of markings and signage in the car-park.
thanks again.
Ive included the privacy notice which is the only signage within 12m of the entrance. The “no parking on access road” sign is half way down the road and not visible from the entrance.

[bass84]

[ostell]

So this was a hire car. with the notice to hirer did you receive a copy of the rental/lease agreement and a copy of the original Notice to Keeper.

Has the driver been identified, Yes or No

Where was that privacy notice?

[bass84]

Thank you for the reply.
In answer to your questions;
1) So this was a hire car.
This is a salary sacrifice scheme with the NHS - the car is on a 3 year lease.

2)with the notice to hirer did you receive a copy of the rental/lease agreement and a copy of the original Notice to Keeper.
The first document I received was the notice to hirer. I did receive correspondence from the lease company that they had given my details to VCS regarding a charge notice. But VCS never sent a lease agreement or an original NTK

3) Has the driver been identified:
When submitting my appeal for the second charge I have been identified as the driver.

4) Where was that privacy notice?
The mounted sign was on the wall in front of where I parked. I had read it but it merely states there is CCTV in operation in the car park etc. The paper privacy notice was placed on my windscreen but gave no details as to the offence.

Please let me know if you need any further information.

Thanks

[ostell]

That ticket on the windscreen is a trick to get the driver to respond to save them going through the bother and expense of going to the DVLA. This is not a notice to Driver and the NTK should have been received by the lease company within 14 days.

Your own Notice to Hire should have been received together with excerpts from the lease agreement and the original NTK. Failing to provide these means that they can not hold the hirer liable. Failure of 14 (2) (a) of POFA. The lease company cannot name the driver, they were not there at the time, the can only identify the hirer/keeper (as distinct from registered keeper).

If you are sure that they have the identity of the driver then the only thing would be the lack of signage,, which includes road markings. Photos at night without flash showing how invisible the signs were.

[bass84]

They have my details from the second charge which I was able to appeal within the allocated time - however I have not stated that I was the driver at the time of this incident at any point.

From your response I would agree there has been a failure of 14 (2) (a) of the POFA.

As I understand it I have the following options available to me but I would value your opinion on how to proceed with the LBC from here.
1) Deny the debt on the reply form and provide my evidence and statement of why I think I don’t owe the debt
2) Ask for evidence of lease agreement and NTK but ignore the reply form
3) Return the reply form with evidence and also ask for the documents listed in point 2.

Any signposting to how to respond would be appreciated.

[ostell]

You, as the hirer/keeper, cannot be held lia le for the actions of the driver because they have failed to comply with POFA.

14 (2) (a), no copy of hire agreement nor initial NTK
14 (5) (c) is not in the prescribed format

no period ofbparking

the sign is forbidding and no contract for parking was offered. With no contract offered then there can be no breach and any charge is a penalty.

here's some text about prohibiting signs. It is about permits but the principle is the same

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[bass84]

Thank you. So do you suggest I reply acknowledging the LBC and simply quoting the above or should I submit an SAR?

If I were to reply with the above, what would be their next move?

There are many templates on this forum and others and I’m getting lost in the detail so I apologise for my ignorance.

[ostell]

I amended the text after you posted but it shows you mean business

Yes SAR will help later

[bass84]

Thank you for your help - I will send a letter to that effect tomorrow and see where that takes us.

I appreciate your help

[bass84]

Good morning,

I have drafted a letter of acknowledgement to send to VCS (attached) using guidance from above and my understanding of what is required from LBC letter according to the PD pre action protocol. Would you mind having a look before I send - I'm unsure as to whether all of this is relevant redacted LBC .docx