PCN from VCS Ltd

[Parsfield#12]

Hi. Just joined. My issue is with 2 PCN issued over the same weekend by VCS Ltd in Liverpool last July. Despite making arrangements with the landlord to park in his allocated bay I was issued with the first PCN 15 minutes after arrival and while I was retrieving the parking permit that had been left for me in the apartment. The second PCN was issued the next day despite the permit being on display in my windscreen. I have appealed an the companies website and refused to pay the alleged charge of £100 or the alleged debt recovery fee of £60 or the £25 court fees which have appeared on a recent Court Court Claim Form. I am happy to continue to dispute the alleged charges. So what is my next step? Any assistance greatly appreciated.

[ostell]

If you have received a claim form then acknowledge the claim using the details and password on the form. Do not put anything in the defence. This gives you 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence to the court.

So your lease gives you the right to park in that place. What was the reason for the second ticket?

See if you can get a copy of the landlord's lease to see what it says about parking. If he actually owns the space then VCS our acting incorrectly. The lease probably doesn't say anything about having to display a permit nor pay a charge if you do not.

Can you get photos of the signs.

[charitynjw]

Hi

Were they windscreen tickets? (PCNs)

Do you still have all the notices? (inc windscreen PCNs if applicable)

Acknowledge the court claim asap per ostell post above.

[Parsfield#12]

Thank you for the prompt responses.
I will acknowledge the claim soonest.
I have problems accessing details of the lease as I booked the weekends stay at the apartment through a 3rd party (Booking.com) and only had limited correspondence with the landlord - who has since stopped replying to my emails. Booking.com are also not replying to emails.
I am not sure why the second ticket was issued as I did move the car from the allocated parking bay at all over the weekend.
Attached picture of signage and PCN's

[charitynjw]

Attached picture of signage and PCN's

I can't see them?

[Parsfield#12]

Sorry had file size issues. Now pictures in Word document

[ostell]

Save your files as a pdf, Not everybody can handle a docx file. Save the file on an external site, several available, and link to here.

The signs are prohibitive, "Valid Parking Permit Holders Only". There is no offer of a contract to park for non permit holders. If there is no contrtact there can be no breach of the non existent contract and therefore no liability. The only claimant can be the landholder, and then only for nominal trespass.

Here's a bit I saved about this sort of situation from some one else's post:

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.

[charitynjw]

Ok now!

Those 'MyParkingCharge notices are not official PCNs.

They just entice the motorist to
1/ cough up, or
2/ reveal the name of the driver at the incident date. Which you never ever do!)

Is that all that you have been given?

[Parsfield#12]

Save your files as a pdf, Not everybody can handle a docx file. Save the file on an external site, several available, and link to here.

The signs are prohibitive, "Valid Parking Permit Holders Only". There is no offer of a contract to park for non permit holders. If there is no contrtact there can be no breach of the non existent contract and therefore no liability. The only claimant can be the landholder, and then only for nominal trespass.

Here's a bit I saved about this sort of situation from some one else's post:

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.

Ok so that's good for me - I think?
I will look up the case laws you have kindly identified.
I guess I should start writing up a defence as soon as possible. Are you aware of any previous defence statements that I can modify/use?
Thank you so much for your help.

[Parsfield#12]

Ok now!

Those 'MyParkingCharge notices are not official PCNs.

They just entice the motorist to
1/ cough up, or
2/ reveal the name of the driver at the incident date. Which you never ever do!)

Is that all that you have been given?

So those (unofficial) PCN's were followed by a letter PCN Notice to driver.
They were able to send me this letter as I had queried the windscreen PCN via their website and sent them a picture of the valid permit. I have also stated that I was the driver...probably the wrong thing to do in retrospect...
I also appealed via the IAS website (and lost the appeal).
I have received demands for payment and letter before claim, before receiving the County Court Claim Form.

[charitynjw]

So those (unofficial) PCN's were followed by a letter PCN Notice to driver.
Do you still have a copy? Is so, post it up.
. I have also stated that I was the driver...probably the wrong thing to do in retrospect...
Err...........c'est la vie! (But it's not fatal to your defence.....more on this in due course, when we find out details from the PPC.)
I also appealed via the IAS website (and lost the appeal).
In retrospect I would probably have advised not going to the IAS, but again not fatal.
.

All good so far.
Btw, you can get the court case reports from Pranky's website here & here
They are not precedent cases, but can be persuasive to other CC judges.

[Setmefree3]

Not the best place to put their notice, right behind a no swimming sign. One could almost say it was confusing to read.

[charitynjw]

Whether or not a judge would view that as 'de minimus' is debatable.
All depends on the 'judges' lottery!'

What we do need is copies of the 2 postal PCN's.

& I would agree with ostell ........the sign, imho, does not meet the Beavis v ParkingEye test (Supreme Court case.)

[Parsfield#12]

All good so far.
Btw, you can get the court case reports from Pranky's website here & here
They are not precedent cases, but can be persuasive to other CC judges.

Thanks again.
Found 2 out of the 3 Cases but not ot Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016]?

[charitynjw]

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...ladstoned.html