I rest my case.

Ah, the mystery of the disappearing ticket! This is one pantomime that has not been affected by Covid 19 restrictions. It is a well known product of VCS and runs hand in glove with an operator type parking enforcement. As such they have sent the NTK too early to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012. The NTK should be received by the keeper NOT BEFORE 29 days of the so called infringement, nor after 56 days. This is to allow a DRIVER to pay the charge before further action, but not so long after that the matter could be forgotten. They have treated it as an ANPR capture, which both from the angle of the photographs in your download and the illusive windscreen ticket it is not. Whatever you do, make no contact with VCS or any of their lackeys, as in so doing you could unwittingly identify yourself as the driver which could take away some of the protections you have under POFA. If the site is not too far from you, it would be worth re-visiting to both obtain photographs of ALL signs on site, particularly any at the entrance as you leave the highway and enter the private land. Also, visit the dealership and express possible interest in a vehicle, mentioning that you visited them a week ago. Ask if they have CCTV covering the car park as your vehicle was interfered with whilst it was parked (this is not a lie because VCS claim that their operative attached a ticket to the windscreen) If they do have cameras that cover the area, give them the exact time that you were there and ask if they could check for you. They may be reluctant to let you see the footage leading up to it due to GDPR, but if they find your vehicle, they may be willing to give you a copy of that section, which may show the ticket being removed by the operator after being photographed. You have nothing to lose by this request. Fill in the questionnaire posted by dx above so that advice from others can be tailored to your circumstance. Sorry, I was composing my post as you were submitting your answers to dx.

I can understand your frustrations at having to wait so long for a resolution of your problem, but I also have to say that I think you have done pretty well out of it. Whilst I am sure that you may be entitled to repayment of some consequential losses/costs, this would be offset against you now having a new or refurbished engine. Normally you cannot expect such betterment without payment. This is what the earlier request of £3.5 K was about and it is pretty amazing that this has been waived.. You have not told us what age of Subaru it was, or the price that you paid for it. I would imagine that the dealer now wants to be shot of the deal! I would be wary of having them conduct an MOT as it may be a way for them to recoup some money with repairs that render the vehicle undriveable ie requiring towing to another repairer if you declined their quotation for any repairs. You are entitled to drive the vehicle to a PRE ARRANGED MoT at your chosen station (there is no requirement for it to be close to the beginning of the journey, but it must be straight there, no deviating for shopping etc) There are many threads on this Forum of difficulties experienced by buyers who have travelled many miles for a second hand vehicle and the logistics that ensue. Maybe time to suck up and move on?

As I read the signs, payment can also be made by Credit or Debit card when a ticket could be issued for display.

TROLL?

A couple of points, you appear to have typed one of the dates incorrectly... Date of issue – 06 Nov 2020 ....... Date for AOS - 07 Nov 2020. Date to submit Defence - 21 Nov 2020 The date for acknowledgement is usually 14 days after date of issue and defence 28 days after issue (if acknowledged in time.). Please confirm which is correct.4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. This is simply an assertion that you failed to comply with a condition on their signage which they claim created a contract that you breached. Nothing at all to do with your contacting them. It is good that you have NOT contacted them, as often a defendant unwittingly loses protection by revealing themselves as the driver.

Under no circumstance should you play BWL's game by filling in THEIR form. Instead send a letter such as the one by ericsbrother that DX suggested which I show below. Dear BWL, I hope you don't mind me calling you this as you don't seem to be able to spell your actual name although Sean isn't that hard to write. Any debt to your client is denied, they clearly have forgotten about their ATA enforced grace period and also don't seem to comprehend that when you have bought a ticket there isn't a breach of not having one to consider. You might also like to know their paperwork is laughable and loses them their right to claim from the outset. Still, any company desperate enough to hire the parking worlds second worst solicitors surely lack any sense of reality but they can be sure that any claim will be robustly defended, a full costs recovery order sought for their unreasonable conduct and possibly a claim made against them for breach of the GDPR for accessing and processing my personal data when they had no reason to do so as per VCs v Phillip, Liverpool CC 2016. I look forward to a deafening silence from you and them from now on. Do not modify it to be less abrasive as this is the only way to indicate that you know that they are charlatans and you are not/ won't be scared into paying their demands. As they do not sign their missives properly, do not sign your letter, just print your name. (They are not beyond scanning and appending a signature to other documents.)

Just to clarify, the offence of supplying a vehicle in an unroadworthy condition is under section 75 of the Road Traffic Act, 1988, not the Highways Act mentioned above. When taking legal action it is best to be accurate.

DX is simply giving you an example of how the POSSIBLE contract that the PPC MAY have with the LANDOWNER (not a management agent) can fail to be enforceable due to failing to pay the contract fee. These claims are about contract law, not parking.

First of all, it is NOT a FINE. Only a court has power to issue fines, the Police can issue Fixed Penalty Notices, a Council can issue Penalty Charge Notices, none of these is a fine. What you have received is a Parking Charge Notice - also known as a Speculative Invoice. Designed to mimic official penalties and referring to it as a FINE will not only give a specious piece of paper an appearance of legitimacy that it does not warrant, but will also give Site Team DX100uk apoplexy as it is his pet hate! Before you do anything, read other threads in this forum, you will then understand the processes and the way that these underlife pretend to have powers that they do not. Forget Channel 4's Can't pay we'll take it away', they are not acting as bailiffs merely Debt Collection Agents with no power.

Although they certainly do have their own byelaws, these do not appear to cover parking.. Go to the link for on your post #5 and look at the bottom where there is a link to the Byelaws.

Let's be clear, from reading your post, the insurance company believe that it will cost £1500 to effect repairs and after taking off the £350 excess are offering you £1150 for you to get the repairs done. You should not expect a repairer to quote the lower figure, anything less than the £1500 will be a bonus.

You do not lie to them in the way that you suggest above, otherwise you lose the moral high ground and sink to their level. Should it end up in the small claims court you would be on a very sticky wicket using such subterfuge. As this is the UK, the word is defence, despite the predictive text that may appear.

*You need to contact the DVLA and inform them of the date that the machine was sold and to whom. Unfortunately you have fallen foul of a chancer who no doubt said ' I will get the ownership changed over for you', which is wrong. It is the responsibility of the registered owner to notify DVLA by sending the completed V5c to them. . I've given them the old log book with your details on so if theres issues they contact you. As far as the sale of the vehicle is concerned, you do not need to worry, should you be contacted by the 'new' new owner, simpy refer them to the person that you/your son sold it to. *You should notify DVLA by letter with free proof of posting.

Just a brief comment on - Also vcs are stating on the ccbc letter that I agreed to pay the fine but failed to do so. This is just their interpretation of contract law as it may appear somewhere on their signage. Just think of it like a cookie, 'if you continue on this page you agree etc' Don't get hung up on it!

Karenslad, just a point with your posting, you do not need to quote a previous post unless you are commenting on multiple aspects of it i.e. bullet pointing. All it does is unnecessarily lengthen the thread. Just addressing the poster will suffice.

One witness YOU Unfortunately not everyone is cognisant of dx's shorthand!

I for one am sorry to read this as you have a great deal to offer the group. Are you happy to tell us the reason?

Provided that you do not identify yourself as the driver, you are safe to ignore and carry on with your life, as the legislation for creating a keeper liability (The Protection of Freedom Act 2012) does not apply in Scotland. It is important that you do not get tempted to appeal the parking charge notice to avoid unwittingly so identifying the driver.

What you may not do is buy on credit/hire purchase for someone else, without declaring that fact to the lender. (They are unlikely to advance the money/credit except in exceptional circumstances).

Unfortunately renewing your licence is not sufficient. You need to update the details on your V5c, the sooner the better, as it is a legal requirement to have a current address for the registered keeper at all times. This cannot be done on-line, you need to fill in the relevant boxes on your existing V5c and post it to DVLA. Take a scan/copy of the V5c as a backup to their losing your application to change.

The Arkell v Pressdram reference is weakened by being inside the text. It should be the last sentence of the letter, as was the relevant content in that case!

Please, we are the United Kingdom, so it is LICENCE.

I think that you should reinforce the fact that whilst you were a passenger in the car at the time of the event, you were NOT the driver, as how it reads could imply that you MIGHT have been and gives ParkingEye a reason to pursue.

'Unscrupulous driver' ?