• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

received a county court claim form for outstanding PCN 2019

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • received a county court claim form for outstanding PCN 2019

    Private pay and display car par – Powis Street Woolwich SE18 6JL (managed by Excel parking services LTD/ Vehicle Control LTD)

    I paid and displayed the parking ticket appropriately in the vehicle on the 31/03/2019.
    However, I received a PCN for - 86) PARKED BEYOND THE BAY MARKINGS, this was simply a ‘red card’ with the PCN number: VCS102***** this card referred me to a website – www.parkingcharge.co.uk where I could see images of the alleged contravention.

    I disagreed with the PCN as looking at the images the tyres of the vehicle where on the line and not ‘beyond’ the bay markings, (However, I did not challenge the PCN at this time – perhaps my error?)
    I recall that I had to park this way in order to have enough space for my wheelchair bound MIL in exiting the passenger side.
    I ignored the PCN and subsequently received a letter requesting payment – I called to challenge the PCN and argued that I was not parked beyond the bay marking and told the call handler I will not pay.

    On the 25/06/19 – I received a letter before claim from VCS demanding £160 – this the parking fine plus £60 debt collection charge. – again, I ignored it hoping that if I challenged it in court, I would be successful.

    On the 06/08/19 – I received a Claim Form N1 – from money claims online - County Court Business Centre – demanding the £160 + court fee of £25. I was in the process of completing the acknowledgement form and to counterclaim. However, my partner decided to pay the £185 online without my knowledge as the stress of a potential judgement being entered was too much.

    Please help - Advice needed
    If I have a strong case as it is clearly evident on the pictures online that the vehicle was not parked beyond the bay.
    If I should still go ahead and counterclaim for a refund of the money paid?
    Tags: None

  • #2
    images of the alleged contravention
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #3
      Unfortunately the edge of the tyre is over the line. The fact that it is not causing a problem because there is not an adjacent bay is immaterial to the parking company, they will proceed anyway.

      You mention Excel and VCS. They are separate companies. From the signs the contract to park was with Excel. Whose name is on the court claim, VCS or Excel? If it's VCS there is no case to answer as there was .no contract with VCS.

      Comment


      • #4
        Its Excel that is named on the court claim

        Comment


        • #5
          The main terms and condition board states that "By entering and remaining in this private car park,you,the driver are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd". At the bottom of the board *" you agree to pay Vehicle Control Services"

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry posted too soon... So no contract exists with between the driver and Excel

            Comment


            • #7
              So the sign in post #3 says at the bottom that the site is operated by Excel so the contract was with Excel and therefore VCS are a third party stranger go that contract and have no claim* Who is the claimant on the form?

              Do your pictures of the signs show VCS?

              And who is this milligrams558 that keeps butting in?

              Comment


              • #8
                Not butting in just trying to help the op. I'm afraid the op hasn't posted the relevant sign within the Powis Street site. On the right hand side of the site next to the pay machine there is a far more informative sign that clearly dictates the terms and conditions explicitly stating that contractformed is with VCS thus Excel are not privy to the contract formed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Having a quick look on google maps it seems there are two car parks next to one another. The OPs car is parked in the one run by Excel with this sign ... could it have been vcs at the date of the contravention though ? Is the picture of the sign the OP posted one that was provided by vcs from the date of the contravention or a more recent one ?

                  Click image for larger version  Name:	DFD7BCA8-3C43-431C-8385-B569D07358AD.jpeg Views:	1 Size:	79.7 KB ID:	1504459

                  Then the car park the other side of the fence ( pictured in front of the OPs vehicle ) has this sign ( also can't read it on google but seems to be the council ?) No idea where VCS fit in to it to have issued the original ticket and letter before claim ?*


                  Click image for larger version  Name:	7EFF1B93-DE0B-48EA-8F09-E3FAF8F9A226.jpeg Views:	1 Size:	68.1 KB ID:	1504460

                  *
                  #staysafestayhome

                  Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                  Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Amethyst,
                    The second one belongs to the council. The first defines the contract with VCS in the blue box *below the 24 hour pay and display writing. I"m unable to post photo, sorry.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      VCS seem to have lost a few cases where the party suing should have been Excel. In this case VCS issued the ticket and letter of claim then switched to Excel for issuing the claim. The claim is for the unpaid invoice rather than the parking contravention - and Excel haven't issued an invoice- everything up to the claim has been VCS.

                      Anyway seems it's been paid

                      "However, my partner decided to pay the £185 online without my knowledge as the stress of a potential judgement being entered was too much."


                      so moot point really but be interesting to know if anyone has recently argued on the switch from VCS to excel for the court claim as a successful defence point.
                      #staysafestayhome

                      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sorry to interject but by this statement *:-

                        "However, I received a PCN for - 86) PARKED BEYOND THE BAY MARKINGS, this was simply a ‘red card’ with the PCN number: VCS102***** this card referred me to a website – www.parkingcharge.co.uk where I could see images of the alleged contravention.

                        Do you mean a red card was stuck to your windscreen directing you to a website ? That's all they put on your windscreen, a red card ?

                        If so this is not enough according to POFA Sch 4 para 7 so they have to send you within 14 days a notice that is compliant. If they haven't then they have no case. They can't just go around sticking links to websites on your windscreen.*

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Unfortunately they do and the DVLA are happy with this and the NTK is issued within 14 days and therefore para 7 is irrelevant.

                          So, from the number, this looks like a VCS incident but the claim is from Excel.* You really must try and get photos of the sign relevant to the portion of the car park where the car was parked.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            But surely they must still have to issue a POFA compliant document within 14 days as well ??? Are you saying the NTK (if sent within 14 days) covers this ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes, if Thete was a NTK issued within the relevant time then that is suffice.* The problem with that windscreen notice is that PPCs hope that it will out the driver, which I think has happened here, and so no protection provided by POFA

                              Comment

                              View our Terms and Conditions

                              LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                              If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                              If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                              Working...
                              X