Tweet
SORRY THIS IS A LOT OF TEXT IN ONE GO. I CAN POST PHOTOS OS SIGNAGE AND CAR PARK IF REQUIRED.
A parking charge notice I received around 2 years ago from the leasers (VCS Ltd.) of a Threadneedle Select Trust property managed by
Savill-Pheonix Beard Property Management at St. Andrew Retail Park, Hull. I am totally out of my depth so I shall simply outline the issues
from my point of view.
I received a letter on the 7th of August 2014 from VCS requesting £100.00 stating that I was;
A) The registered keeper of the vehicle.
B) Had parked longer than the maximum period permitted. (I have since found out they are claiming I stayed in the car park for two hour and
twenty minutes.)
When I rang to query this, I discovered it was allegedly the second letter they had sent out. According to VCS, they sent me a letter which was
never received, at some time in 2014, stating that I had violated a parking rule of theirs (I hold a valid disability parking blue badge, which gives
me three hours parking time) and this meant I was out of date for the appeals process, according to the information on the back of the letter that
they had provided, and it also stated that the date of the parking charge notice was the 20th of June 2014, and you are only allowed 28 days to
appeal from that date. This letter was after that date, so I refuted the claim to the parking charge notice. In my ignorance I thought these notices
could not be enforced as I had seen such advice on watchdog at some earlier date,
I have since been back to the car park, and allowance is made for blue badge parking in appointed bays, only with the valid blue badge. It does
not however state that I cannot park for three hours I am allowed in other areas of the city. The signage is very unclear about that and I have
a photograph if I can work out how to show it to you.
I did request a copy of the first letter, which I never received. Nor did they send me information regarding the ombudsman or how to appeal as
I requested in the later letter I sent them when they continued to harass me. This did not help my health as I find such situations very stressful. I
heard nothing from them, until the 6th of October 2014, when I was contacted by Rossendales Collect for £130.00, as they had added a £30.00
administration fee onto it. I rang and gave them the same information as I have above to you. We then received letters on the 14th of October,
the 13th of November and the 27th of November for the £130. My daughter wrote to them for me, making them aware of various violations that
we thought their clients had made, which lead them to put the account on hold, informing us of such on the 18th of December. We then received
a further letter from Rossendales Collect on the 30th of January 2015, stating that blue badges did not cover private property, which they state is
clear on their sign (which it is not).
Rossendales then on the 20th of January, threatened to send a "doorstep collector", which as someone who is alone in the house a lot I found
quite intimidating. This was reiterated on the 13th of February, after we had called them to refute the issue again This was the last we heard from
Rossendales.
Next, came DRP (Debt Recovery Plus ltd) on the 2nd of June 2015, with a demand for a payment of an unpaid parking charge, for £160. We
ignored this letter due to illness at this time. Another came on the 17th of June, and the 3rd of July, when my daughter then rang them and
refuted the claim.
There was an offer on the letter for £128.00 to pay, to avoid court proceedings. I believe we rang to refute this, however I can't be sure on that
fact as it was all getting too stressful for me. DRP was then gone.
Zenith contacted me on 31st July at a reduced offer of £79.99 for the parking charge notice. Then the same on 17th of August, which
I also disputed
Almost a year later, I received a letter from BW Legal on the 2nd of June 2016, asking for a payment of £154.00, which included their initial
costs and the original PCN. On the same day we received a letter from VCS stating that they had passed on the debt to their "legal team", BW
Legal. I rang BW Legal, same explanation to no avail.
On 5th July, I received a letter from BW Legal stating that because we hadn't paid off the balance, they were now going to take me to court
over the matter, even though I'm not the driver of the vehicle.
This was reiterated on the 2nd of August with a letter of claim, which added court and solicitor's fees on, making a new total payable to £245.96.
I was still ill during this time and was unable to respond to them, and my daughter now works shifts, which preclude her from intervening for me
all the time.
Finally on 22nd of September, we were issued court proceedings from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. However I am instructed
that I have to deal with this immediately, even though I don't really understand how to fully respond as I am told that points of law should be
cited rather than mitigation but I don't know which points of law to cite on the response form and I believe VCS count on this fact which is why
they continue to go from debt company to debt company sending out escalating fees to unsuspecting people regardless of the mitigation offered.
Their letters are always very official looking, and quite intimidating, although I note, from the address they are using to contact me, they are fully
aware that my car is a disability car. They have stated my name followed by c/o Motability Finance as the second line of my address but this
is only as it appears on the DVLA database and so I argue that they know they are continually harassing a disabled person. It should be noted
that BW Legal are also writing to "XXX c/o Motability Finance Ltd", so they were also aware this was a Motability car.
My son has been on some forums and advice websites that have stated that the British Parking Association recommend (16d) that blue badge
holders should not be issued with a PCN. It should also be noted that on the day I was not given a windscreen ticket and this charge came very
much out of the blue. I gather they used registration plate reading cameras to see the car. But I have yet to see any photographic evidence of this.
I have copies of all these correspondences (but not the phone calls which I realise is an error on my part but I am frequently too tired to do much
more than ring a couple of people during the day) but if you wish to view what I have then I can ask my son to scan them in for me, so I can
show these to you but I expect they are standard.
I have sent in the acknowledgement and have 14 days left to sort out a defence but I'm totally confused after reading extensively all over the internet
and simply do not know how to word the defence nor what the actual defence should be, I find it really very stressful and taxing.
I hope someone can walk me through this please. I can post photos if needed.
I have written a defence (below) if someone can have a look at it and advise me of the law please. it must be in by midnight tomorrow (25th) I am often ill and asleep cos of medication so have not has as much time on it as I would have liked.
DEFENCE
1) The Defendant is the registered Keeper of the car butwas not and could not have been the driver as the defendant cannot drive, anddid not hold any valid license.
2) A valid NTK was not issued at the time of the offenceon the vehicle this is non-compliant with POFA 2012
3) A valid NTK was not received by post within the 14days of incident as required so this is non-compliantwith POFA 2012
4) Defendant was not sent any information regarding anappeal even though it was requested in a letter to Rossendale Collect dated12/2014
5) Defendant does not agree to any legal contract withVehicle Control Services
6) The signage was unclear and did not specify that aBlue Badge holder could not stay as per the Blue Badge provisions.
7) The penalty is disproportionate to the losses incurred as parking is free.
8) The inferred losses incurred are with the landowner not VCS.
9) As the APRN camera does not recognize blue badgeholders the BPA rules for members 2014 state - 27.5 If your landowner provides a concessionthat allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid BlueBadge, you must not issue it with parking charge notices.” As per the Parking Eye v Beavis ruling
10) Regarding the grace period the BPA rules for members 2014 state - “13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after theparking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” This graceperiod is a minimum of 10 minutes and applies to both the entry and the exit asthe driver needs time to find a suitable parking space, read the signage anddecide whether or not to stay. On leavingit takes time to get into the car, strap in and actually manoeuvre out of theparking space without accident with other users as it is a small tight area. Butas a disabled person the defendant has mobility issues causing a need for alonger grace period to enable them to get settled into the car prior to driversafely off. If considered as the defendant’s car was a mere 20 minutes latepassing the outgoing APRN. As the cameras are used to record times as the vehiclepasses on an adjacent roadway so the alleged total time is not time spentactually parking, which may well have been within the allowed time. This would enable VCS to comply with the Disability Accessability Act 2010. The Equality Act says the disabled person should neverbe asked to pay for the adjustments.
One example of reasonable adjustment given by CAB website is “Change the way things are done
Some people or organisations may have a certain way of doing things which makes it more difficult for you to access or do something. This could be a formal or informal policy, a rule or a practice. It could also be a one-off decision. The Equality Act calls this provision, criterion or practice.
The organisation should change these things if they are a barrier for you, unless it’s unreasonable to do so. Example - Your University has a policy of only allowing students to park in allocated student car parks. You have a mobility impairment which means you need to be able to park close to where your classes are. This isn’t always possible as the allocated car parks are situated on one side only of the campus. Allowing you to park in designated parking spaces on all of the campuses likely to be a reasonable adjustment to their parking policy so that you can attend your classes.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/di...sabled-people/
Does anyone have a comment about the following as it is some info I was given on PEPIPOO
"The signage states that VCS accept no responsibility for the site, nor does it give the name of the landowner. I believe, but can't remember the reasoning behind it, that in situations like this, unnamed principal and stating no liability, then they cannot take any claim to court in their own right. Some of the more legally trained might pickup on this one."
A parking charge notice I received around 2 years ago from the leasers (VCS Ltd.) of a Threadneedle Select Trust property managed by
Savill-Pheonix Beard Property Management at St. Andrew Retail Park, Hull. I am totally out of my depth so I shall simply outline the issues
from my point of view.
I received a letter on the 7th of August 2014 from VCS requesting £100.00 stating that I was;
A) The registered keeper of the vehicle.
B) Had parked longer than the maximum period permitted. (I have since found out they are claiming I stayed in the car park for two hour and
twenty minutes.)
When I rang to query this, I discovered it was allegedly the second letter they had sent out. According to VCS, they sent me a letter which was
never received, at some time in 2014, stating that I had violated a parking rule of theirs (I hold a valid disability parking blue badge, which gives
me three hours parking time) and this meant I was out of date for the appeals process, according to the information on the back of the letter that
they had provided, and it also stated that the date of the parking charge notice was the 20th of June 2014, and you are only allowed 28 days to
appeal from that date. This letter was after that date, so I refuted the claim to the parking charge notice. In my ignorance I thought these notices
could not be enforced as I had seen such advice on watchdog at some earlier date,
I have since been back to the car park, and allowance is made for blue badge parking in appointed bays, only with the valid blue badge. It does
not however state that I cannot park for three hours I am allowed in other areas of the city. The signage is very unclear about that and I have
a photograph if I can work out how to show it to you.
I did request a copy of the first letter, which I never received. Nor did they send me information regarding the ombudsman or how to appeal as
I requested in the later letter I sent them when they continued to harass me. This did not help my health as I find such situations very stressful. I
heard nothing from them, until the 6th of October 2014, when I was contacted by Rossendales Collect for £130.00, as they had added a £30.00
administration fee onto it. I rang and gave them the same information as I have above to you. We then received letters on the 14th of October,
the 13th of November and the 27th of November for the £130. My daughter wrote to them for me, making them aware of various violations that
we thought their clients had made, which lead them to put the account on hold, informing us of such on the 18th of December. We then received
a further letter from Rossendales Collect on the 30th of January 2015, stating that blue badges did not cover private property, which they state is
clear on their sign (which it is not).
Rossendales then on the 20th of January, threatened to send a "doorstep collector", which as someone who is alone in the house a lot I found
quite intimidating. This was reiterated on the 13th of February, after we had called them to refute the issue again This was the last we heard from
Rossendales.
Next, came DRP (Debt Recovery Plus ltd) on the 2nd of June 2015, with a demand for a payment of an unpaid parking charge, for £160. We
ignored this letter due to illness at this time. Another came on the 17th of June, and the 3rd of July, when my daughter then rang them and
refuted the claim.
There was an offer on the letter for £128.00 to pay, to avoid court proceedings. I believe we rang to refute this, however I can't be sure on that
fact as it was all getting too stressful for me. DRP was then gone.
Zenith contacted me on 31st July at a reduced offer of £79.99 for the parking charge notice. Then the same on 17th of August, which
I also disputed
Almost a year later, I received a letter from BW Legal on the 2nd of June 2016, asking for a payment of £154.00, which included their initial
costs and the original PCN. On the same day we received a letter from VCS stating that they had passed on the debt to their "legal team", BW
Legal. I rang BW Legal, same explanation to no avail.
On 5th July, I received a letter from BW Legal stating that because we hadn't paid off the balance, they were now going to take me to court
over the matter, even though I'm not the driver of the vehicle.
This was reiterated on the 2nd of August with a letter of claim, which added court and solicitor's fees on, making a new total payable to £245.96.
I was still ill during this time and was unable to respond to them, and my daughter now works shifts, which preclude her from intervening for me
all the time.
Finally on 22nd of September, we were issued court proceedings from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton. However I am instructed
that I have to deal with this immediately, even though I don't really understand how to fully respond as I am told that points of law should be
cited rather than mitigation but I don't know which points of law to cite on the response form and I believe VCS count on this fact which is why
they continue to go from debt company to debt company sending out escalating fees to unsuspecting people regardless of the mitigation offered.
Their letters are always very official looking, and quite intimidating, although I note, from the address they are using to contact me, they are fully
aware that my car is a disability car. They have stated my name followed by c/o Motability Finance as the second line of my address but this
is only as it appears on the DVLA database and so I argue that they know they are continually harassing a disabled person. It should be noted
that BW Legal are also writing to "XXX c/o Motability Finance Ltd", so they were also aware this was a Motability car.
My son has been on some forums and advice websites that have stated that the British Parking Association recommend (16d) that blue badge
holders should not be issued with a PCN. It should also be noted that on the day I was not given a windscreen ticket and this charge came very
much out of the blue. I gather they used registration plate reading cameras to see the car. But I have yet to see any photographic evidence of this.
I have copies of all these correspondences (but not the phone calls which I realise is an error on my part but I am frequently too tired to do much
more than ring a couple of people during the day) but if you wish to view what I have then I can ask my son to scan them in for me, so I can
show these to you but I expect they are standard.
I have sent in the acknowledgement and have 14 days left to sort out a defence but I'm totally confused after reading extensively all over the internet
and simply do not know how to word the defence nor what the actual defence should be, I find it really very stressful and taxing.
I hope someone can walk me through this please. I can post photos if needed.
I have written a defence (below) if someone can have a look at it and advise me of the law please. it must be in by midnight tomorrow (25th) I am often ill and asleep cos of medication so have not has as much time on it as I would have liked.
DEFENCE
1) The Defendant is the registered Keeper of the car butwas not and could not have been the driver as the defendant cannot drive, anddid not hold any valid license.
2) A valid NTK was not issued at the time of the offenceon the vehicle this is non-compliant with POFA 2012
3) A valid NTK was not received by post within the 14days of incident as required so this is non-compliantwith POFA 2012
4) Defendant was not sent any information regarding anappeal even though it was requested in a letter to Rossendale Collect dated12/2014
5) Defendant does not agree to any legal contract withVehicle Control Services
6) The signage was unclear and did not specify that aBlue Badge holder could not stay as per the Blue Badge provisions.
7) The penalty is disproportionate to the losses incurred as parking is free.
8) The inferred losses incurred are with the landowner not VCS.
9) As the APRN camera does not recognize blue badgeholders the BPA rules for members 2014 state - 27.5 If your landowner provides a concessionthat allows parking for disabled people, if a vehicle displays a valid BlueBadge, you must not issue it with parking charge notices.” As per the Parking Eye v Beavis ruling
10) Regarding the grace period the BPA rules for members 2014 state - “13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after theparking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action.” This graceperiod is a minimum of 10 minutes and applies to both the entry and the exit asthe driver needs time to find a suitable parking space, read the signage anddecide whether or not to stay. On leavingit takes time to get into the car, strap in and actually manoeuvre out of theparking space without accident with other users as it is a small tight area. Butas a disabled person the defendant has mobility issues causing a need for alonger grace period to enable them to get settled into the car prior to driversafely off. If considered as the defendant’s car was a mere 20 minutes latepassing the outgoing APRN. As the cameras are used to record times as the vehiclepasses on an adjacent roadway so the alleged total time is not time spentactually parking, which may well have been within the allowed time. This would enable VCS to comply with the Disability Accessability Act 2010. The Equality Act says the disabled person should neverbe asked to pay for the adjustments.
One example of reasonable adjustment given by CAB website is “Change the way things are done
Some people or organisations may have a certain way of doing things which makes it more difficult for you to access or do something. This could be a formal or informal policy, a rule or a practice. It could also be a one-off decision. The Equality Act calls this provision, criterion or practice.
The organisation should change these things if they are a barrier for you, unless it’s unreasonable to do so. Example - Your University has a policy of only allowing students to park in allocated student car parks. You have a mobility impairment which means you need to be able to park close to where your classes are. This isn’t always possible as the allocated car parks are situated on one side only of the campus. Allowing you to park in designated parking spaces on all of the campuses likely to be a reasonable adjustment to their parking policy so that you can attend your classes.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/di...sabled-people/
Does anyone have a comment about the following as it is some info I was given on PEPIPOO
"The signage states that VCS accept no responsibility for the site, nor does it give the name of the landowner. I believe, but can't remember the reasoning behind it, that in situations like this, unnamed principal and stating no liability, then they cannot take any claim to court in their own right. Some of the more legally trained might pickup on this one."
Comment