Any help with Court Case for PCN please?

RAMBCU1884

Hello,

In the summer months of 2015, a person (who was not the registered keeper) parked a car at a free car park at a train station. The car was encroaching into a second bay of a vertical row of car bays (nose to bumper rather than car door to car door).

Like so:
| bay one | bay two | bay three |

The reason for this was due to the bay being smaller in length than other bays in the vertical row and that the bay was also located right next to the main entrance of the site where other cars can access at speed and have to maneuver round an awkward angle and the person did not want someone clipping the car as they drove onto the site. Both the other bays were in use and had plenty of space for the other vehicles to get in and out of- it genuinely wasn't a case of selfish parking and hogging two bays.

The car was issued a PCN upon the person's return from the station.

The person then wrote a reply to the ticket issuer stating it was to be challenge but never admitting they were the driver or mentioning they were the registered keeper but have said "I am challenging this ticket" and ''my car was parked" (said person acknowledges they've not helped themselves now case is coming up in court but with your help might be able to get around this) and the letter can be shared to provide more detail if needed.

The person believes they never received an acknowledgement or reply by email or post from ticketing issuers meaning no POPLA case number was passed on (however the person will have to wait until the legal firm passes over all requested docs for the court case as letters might have been thrown out). They would still like to prepare for the court case for both outcomes whether they were or weren't issued a POPLA case number.

Since then the person has been sent the usual scare letters from debt collectors but has now been issued with court case claim forms. The person is now looking for any support you give to help with this case, they have started reading up on the forums to piece things together it's not the most straight forward due to the register keeper and challenge letters.

The irony of all of this is that the car parking bay has now been removed altogether from the site, most likely due to cars slightly blocking the entrance!

The person is in contact with the landowner to see if they can wave ticket, who has acknowledged the situation and is now looking into it on their side by requesting images to back up the claims and the ticket from the ticket issuer.

Could you please confirm this is the correct next steps the person needs to take before starting a defense?

1. Log the disagreement of the claim on moneyclaim which will extend the 14 day period (which the person needs to do before the end of this weekend) to 28 days from the date of service

2. Request the legal company to submit the following documentation within 7 days to prepare a defense:
- All correspondence sent by post or email
- Photos of the vehicle in question, signage and locations of signage across the whole site on the issue date of the PCN and the car park site map to highlight where bays are located in summer 2015

3. Once all documentation is received prepare defense and submit before the 28 day deadline

Thank you in advance for any support you give on this case.

The_Deep

If this is bye law land you do not have to pay a penny.


Report them to the DVLA for accessing your data without due cause, here is one I did earlier for my son in law

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]I wish to draw to your notice that APCOA appear to have obtained my personal details from you without due cause, thus breaching their KADOE contract and infringing my personal DPA rights [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They have sent me a notice to keeper demanding £100 for an alleged infringement of their Terms and Conditions of parking on railway land covered by bye-laws. This is contrary to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act. [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Please investigate this matter and if they have used my personal data improperly, or breached their Kadoe contract please apply the applicable sanctions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Yours faithfully[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

1. Log the [STRIKE]disagreement[/STRIKE] of the claim on moneyclaim which will extend the 14 day period (which the person needs to do before the end of this weekend) to 28 days from the date of service

Yes but it's ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE only.

2. Request the legal company to submit the following documentation within 7 days to prepare a defense:
- All correspondence sent by post or email
- Photos of the vehicle in question, signage and locations of signage across the whole site on the issue date of the PCN and the car park site map to highlight where bays are located in summer 2015

He can but try!

3. Once all documentation is received prepare defense and submit before the 28 day deadline

Don't wait for documents that will never arrive!

The person then wrote a reply to the ticket issuer stating it was to be challenge but never admitting they were the driver or mentioning they were the registered keeper but have said "I am challenging this ticket" and ''my car was parked" (said person acknowledges they've not helped themselves now case is coming up in court but with your help might be able to get around this) and the letter can be shared to provide more detail if needed.

On the contrary, that's a perfectly reasonable response and looks better to a Judge than a person ignoring it.

Was any NTK ever served, if the first PCN was on the windscreen? Did the PPC get DVLA data at all to serve a NTK or NTO or similar?

Was this Indigo?

Or VCS maybe? Any NTK ever served?

Was the first PCN a 'parking charge' or a 'penalty charge' notice?

RAMBCU1884

Hi Coupun-Mad,

Thank you for the reassurances with regards to the particular conundrum of a non-NTK challenging the ticket.

A notice to keeper / driver letter was issued 6 months later but with the name of the non-NTK and the address to which the car is registered. However they may have got those details from the challenge letter that was sent within the 21 day notice rather than the DVLA - is there anyway we can find that out?

Again we're struggling to recall any other letters being sent before this time but I'm assuming that if we contact the legal company handing the case they will have to supply us with all correspondence if requested under part 18 (if we've read that correctly).

The ticket was issued by being left on the drivers window by Vehicle Control Services, not Indigo, and it is a parking charge notice.

Coupon-mad

However they may have got those details from the challenge letter that was sent within the 21 day notice rather than the DVLA - is there anyway we can find that out?

So you are saying that the appellant wasn't the registered keeper, just the keeper on the day. And the 'NTK' took six months and was never addressed to the DVLA registered keeper?

So that means they never did get the data from the DVLA but the registered keeper themselves (no-one else) can check this by asking the DVLA. Don't hold up the defence for that though because it is clear the DVLA were NOT approached. That's OK, they can pursue the person who appealed and will 'assume' they were driving (which the defendant can put them to strict proof/evidence about).

I'm assuming that if we contact the legal company handing the case they will have to supply us with all correspondence if requested under part 18 (if we've read that correctly).

That 'Legal company' = BW Legal and there are threads all over the forum laughing at their mess-ups, as well as loads of Blogs about them by the Parking Prankster. BW Legal will NOT supply any information, be clear about that.

Lynch just won on pepipoo v VCS but not a railway one I seem to recall:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=106289

and here is danlightbulb's very long thread which seems almost exactly like yours:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104939

VCS and Centro?

Danlightbulb posted loads of info there including his defence and the WS that VCS supplied, so it gives you a real heads up as to how this will pan out and what to put in advance, in the defence, to pre-empt their arguments.

He settled for £60 in the end but don't be put off, his thread is really useful and he will have cost VCS a three figure sum so they were very much out of pocket.

As the bays have been changed and that one removed since the parking event it can be argued that VCS were not authorised to enforce parking charges because CENTRO acknowledged that several sites had unclear lines which needed removing/repainting first. I think that proof is in danlightbulb's thread - there's a copy of some info from CENTRO about this very issue, floating around. They also state that they are aware that byelaws land is different and should not have been run as if it was private land.

If it's not in danlightbulb's thread then IamEmanresu probably recalls where to find it.

RAMBCU1884

Interesting developments in this saga. Having submitted the acknowledgement of service I submitted the following letter via email below to BW Legal last Saturday.

I have since today received a letter from BW Legal containing a notice of discontinuance for the entire claim.

That's saved me writing a defence and witness statement all weekend.

A big thank you for everyone's help with this, keep fighting the good fight :T


PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION


I write with regards to the above mentioned County Court Claim. Please answer the following questions:

1. What is the basis of the claim? How has Vehicle Control Services asserted the defendant has liability?
2. Is Vehicle Control Services making a claim as an agent of the landowner or is Vehicle Control Services making the claim as occupier in their own right?
3. Is the amount claimed by Vehicle Control Services for a genuine pre-estimate of loss for a breach of contract or a contractual sum?
4. If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event. Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.
5. Were there signs at the entrance to the site on the date in question? Did these meet the British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent Parking Committee’s Schedule 1 (Please indicate)
6. Provide a copy of the PCN Terms and Conditions on date of event

Please also provide the following documentation to support the claim form:

• All correspondence issued to the defendant by Vehicle Control Service Limited and BW Legal between the date of the event to present day
• Photographic evidence of the vehicle in question on the date of the event
• A site map of the car park on the date of the event
• The most up to date site map of the car park

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU. I also require that answers to these questions be verified by a Statement of Truth by an authorised signatory of BW Legal.

Coupon-mad

I have since today received a letter from BW Legal containing a notice of discontinuance for the entire claim.

Ring Northampton court next week and check they have also got this, if not you will still have to defend. Hope not!

RAMBCU1884

Ok I'll double check it with them next week. Why would I still have to defend? Is the letter I've recieved another BW Legal tactic?

Coupon-mad

It may be a c0ck-up letter by BW Legal, who normally send a different letter at this stage which shows a copy of their DQ, blathering on that they are proceeding.

If they have not informed the court the same as they sent to you, then the Court wheels will continue to turn of course and the court will have no idea you have this letter, and you would then get a CCJ by default for not defending and would have a huge uphill battle.

I hope the Court confirm it is discontinued, but for your peace of mind, phone.