Free Traffic Legal Advice

You need to check the signs at the car park. The PCN is from VCS. The signs in the GSV, show it is run by Excel. However, the GSV images are over 7 years old.

Please let us know which company is showing on the signs now. Take a photo.

Some of the signs just show Excel, and others showing both Excel and VCS. The main sign next to the parking meter does say the contract is with VCS.

Also, the initial appeal I made was rejected on the basis there is sufficient signage, making it clear that a £100 charge will be levied if parked outside the Terms and Conditions displayed, and that I exited the car park after the ticket expired.

Do I have any basis on which to appeal this?

So you've already appealed this. You didn't say and I've just wasted my time composing one for you. It's too late to do anything except you can try your luck with the kangaroo court that is the IAS. I suspect that the only way this is gong to be resolved is in the county court.

If those are your own photos, make sure you keep the Metadata for them and, if you can, get them date and time stamped. If not, get your own photos of any signs at the car park that have the Excel logo on them.

In the context of private parking enforcement, the entity named on the signage at a parking location is typically considered the contracting party. If the signage displays "Excel Parking Services Ltd." but the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is issued by "Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS)," this discrepancy is significant. Despite both companies being sister entities with common directors, they are separate legal entities with distinct company registration numbers.

A contract is formed between the driver and the entity named on the signage. Therefore, if Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the company identified on the signs, any contractual agreement would be with them, not VCS. This means VCS lack the legal standing to enforce the parking charge, as they are not a party to the contract formed by the signage.

VCS/Excel have lost several claims because of this discrepancy.

If you receive an NtK from a company different from the one named on the signage, you should appeal the charge by highlighting this inconsistency. In your appeal, state that the contract was with the company named on the signage (Excel Parking Services Ltd.), and therefore, VCS has no legal authority to enforce the charge. Make sure you have the photos of the signs to support your appeal.

Here is a suggested appeal:

Parking Charge Notice Reference: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]

This is a formal Registered Keeper appeal of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS). I do not believe this charge is valid, and I request its immediate cancellation on the following grounds:

1. Incorrect Legal Entity on Signage
The signage at the location in question clearly identifies the operator as Excel Parking Services Ltd., not Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS). It is well-established that Excel Parking Services Ltd. and Vehicle Control Services Ltd. are separate legal entities with distinct company registration numbers, despite having the same directors.

As a result, the contract entered into at the time of parking was with Excel Parking Services Ltd., the entity named on the signage. VCS, as a separate legal entity, has no standing to enforce any alleged contractual terms or to issue this PCN.

2. Failure to Establish Legal Standing
In order for VCS to pursue this charge, you must demonstrate legal standing to do so. Since Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the company named on the signage and therefore the party to any potential contract, VCS has no contractual or legal authority to act in this matter. I request that you provide evidence of your authority to issue this PCN and to enforce any charges in relation to parking at this location.

3. Request for Evidence
If you believe that VCS is entitled to enforce this charge, please provide the following evidence:

1. A copy of the contract between VCS and the landowner granting you authority to operate and enforce parking at this site.
2. Evidence of your compliance with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) in relation to signage and correspondence.
3. A detailed explanation of how VCS has the legal right to pursue charges at a location where Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the named entity.

4. Photographic Evidence
Should VCS not cancel this PCN, I have photographs of the signage at the location, which clearly display the name Excel Parking Services Ltd. and will not hesitate to evidence them in any subsequent litigation should VCS be so inclined to persist in this futile exercise.

Given the above, I suggest the immediate cancellation of this PCN. Additionally, pursuing this charge without demonstrating the legal standing to do so constitutes a breach of consumer protection laws.

If you reject this appeal, please provide a detailed response addressing each of the points raised, along with the necessary evidence to support your position. Failure to do so will result in further action, including a formal complaint to the IPC.

Please consider this a formal request for your response within the timeframe specified by the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice.

Apologies, I had to quickly respond to the PCN as I was reaching the "discount" time limit in which to lodge the appeal.

Thanks for the suggested appeal, but on the sign it does say though that the contract is with VCS. Just so I'm clear are you essentially suggesting that the contract with VCS is void because the car park is managed by Excel?

That main terms and conditions sign is bizarre. It bears Excel's logo, then says that VCS are the creditor and the entity with whom contracts are formed, but then says that Excel will have the right to take legal action!

It's pretty much as per the PCN.

A ticket was bought for two hours, which expired at 14:35. So the tickets would have been bought at 12:35. The cameras have the car entering the car park at 12:32 and exiting at 14:49, which exceeded the duration by 14 minutes, and is the reason for the PCN.

The IAS is a waste of time but if you insist, just repeat the appeal suggested.

The most likely outcome of this will be a court claim where they hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will simply pay up out of ignorance once litigation starts. However, in reality, they would never let this get in front of a judge as they’d receive a spanking.

Eventually, as long as you follow the advice here, they would discontinue.

If there’s a sign at the car park that shows the creditor to be Excel, then they have breached the CRA and the CoP. That would be enough to get it thrown out in court.

However, these scammers rely on your gullibility in believing that litigation is a bad thing and out of ignorance you would capitulate and pay them before it ever got to court. Exactly what they want.

As for IAS, it’s a joke. Try if you want. When they reject, don’t imagine tht you have no other options but to pay. The only truly independent dispute resolution service is the smal claims track of the county court.