VCS Parking - CCCF Letter - MCOL: Defence help

ajplag

I’ve tried to keep the below as short and sweet as possible, more information can be provided but a lot of this is already mentioned in a colleagues post below. Thanks in advance J

• Claim History:

A claim was issued against you on 20/03/2017
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 29/03/2017 at 23:53:29
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 30/03/2017 at 08:02:50

Is it 28 days from the last date or the first date please?

• Facts of claim

VCS Parking Letter claim – MSE Forum won’t allow me to post links
Date of fines - MSE Forum won’t allow me to post links

• Defence
  This has occurred in the same location as a colleague of mine so much of the below points would be used in my defence. He is a couple of stages ahead of me so if the ruling is in his favour then this can be applied to future cases?

Search: VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed

• I have pictures of the last 3 fines issued and the section where is says ‘number of signs visible’ changes. One fine reads 2 signs, whereas the other two fines read 3 signs (phots can be provided if necessary)
  
• Buy not actually parking in the bays then surely a contract isn’t formed and therefore the position that the car is parked on the through road should be seen as a criminal matter for trespassing? Daily parking situation is like this. However, opposite the spaces is a double yellow lined pavement, but no signs align that path so what are we to assume on this stretch of land when parts further around the industrial estate have signs stating “No Parking at Any Time”
  
  MSE Forum won’t allow me to post links
  
  
• Again as per above link signage is woeful. The signs applicable to these fines read as per the link below.

MSE Forum won’t allow me to post links

Fruitcake

None of that makes sense to me. What are you actually saying? Where did the alleged event take place? (Retail outlet, residential car park, hospital, workplace etcetera.) What happened when you complained to the landowner? Which VCS is this; there are two that I know of?

If that is your defence, it will lose.

You can post (redacted) images by uploading them to a web hosting site (in a false name) such as tinypic or photobucket, then post the URLs here but change http to hxxp. Someone here will then change it back to a live link.

Have you read the court section of the NEWBIES thread, and the guide to court that by bargepole that is linked from the aforesaid NEWBIES?

ajplag

Hi Fruitcake, apologies for not being as clear as I should've been, the above was more of a brain dump to get the ball rolling.


So....


This has taken place within an industrial estate where I work. As there isn't sufficient parking provided by my employer many exployees seem to chance their luck with a building opposite which has a road that runs adjacent to our building (private road). Vehicle Control Services LTD have been instructed by various landlords to manage the parking around the industrial estate (each landowner has their separate terms with VCS as to how they want the land to be managed) this is the only part of the industrial estate requesting that a valid parking permit is displayed. No complaint has been made to the landowner, parking fines just ignored.


The reason why many employees risk parking here is that the road is sufficient enough to have the marked bays (for cars to park in nose to tail) and to park a car next to this space with enough room to pass. Therefore most park just next to the space therefore not needing to display a valid permit and able to park. This has been previously posted by another colleague in a post titled VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed.


I worked for a company for 5 years with poor parking facilities. I used to park on a nearby road in the same industrial estate, but after it became popular, VCS moved in. They only signposted half the road (only the parking bays) and would regularly ticket every car on the road, on both sides as well. After my first few tickets, I came here and read through the newbie forums. I found the template, fired that out to VCS and both of my parking tickets were cancelled. Excellent work MSE! I still collected tickets though for parking there (often dubiously) but instead of continuing to challenge them (as I had done the previously) I started ignoring them.

I've just had a CCCF issued to me on the 15th Feb from the CCBC for a grand total of £880. As per the newbie thread, I've submitted my AOS and now have plenty of time to prepare my defence. I've read though a few cases on here (as well as the excellent guidance on irrelevant defences) but hoped to get a few questions specific to my case answered if possible?

I'm happy to provide whatever documents/pictures you guys feel will aid in preparing a defence, so please ask!

Few initial questions though;

1) Given I've had 2 previous 'invoices' cancelled by using the MSE template, should that become the leading light in my defence?

2) VCS often ticketed cars on the road opposite to where they had put sign posts. Moreover, the signs were placed next to booths (which I never parked in) and tickets were handed to anybody that parked nearby. I can provide a picture or use Google Maps to show what I mean if easier?


I have read both bargepole and NEWBIES thread so am aware of what is needed of me, just may need some prodding in the right direction. My main concern is if I can use the main arguments from my colleague on the other thread, as this will save an initial amount of time, and also if the AOS is counted from the 5 days from the initial MCOL request?


Sorry, first real post on MSE, go easy

Coupon-mad

This has been previously posted by another colleague in a post titled VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed.

Here the colleague is:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5607535

My main concern is if I can use the main arguments from my colleague on the other thread, as this will save an initial amount of time, and also if the AOS is counted from the 5 days from the initial MCOL request?

Yes use a similar defence - but as for AOS, that time is irrelevant as you have done it already. You now have 28 days plus (up to) A MAXIMUM of 5 days for 'service' from the date on the claim form.

A max 33 days at most, from the claim form date of issue. Don't let it get that close, aim for day 30.

ajplag

Change the xx part to the correct HTTP and hopefully get the links correctly, please tell me if this doesn't work :T Due to the timescales i'm hoping to submit my defence by the 19th. Once pictures have been discussed i will upload first defence draft. Thanks again

VCS Letter
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/FullSizeRender_zpskcqemvym.jpg

Daily Parking
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/IMG_5908_zpsvyfmz2pm.jpg

Sign
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/IMG_5905_zpsucxwgdsq.jpg

Fine History
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fines%20amended_zpskofajqcs.jpg

Fine example
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%203_zps3ptozpb9.jpg

Fine example 2
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%202_zpstkr0qivi.jpg

Fine Example 3
hxxp://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%201_zpsw2xf5fit.jpg

Lamilad

ajplag wrote: »

Change the xx part to the correct HTTP and hopefully get the links correctly, please tell me if this doesn't work :T Due to the timescales i'm hoping to submit my defence by the 19th. Once pictures have been discussed i will upload first defence draft. Thanks again

VCS Letter
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/FullSizeRender_zpskcqemvym.jpg

Daily Parking
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/IMG_5908_zpsvyfmz2pm.jpg

Sign
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/IMG_5905_zpsucxwgdsq.jpg

Fine History
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fines%20amended_zpskofajqcs.jpg

Fine example
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%203_zps3ptozpb9.jpg

Fine example 2
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%202_zpstkr0qivi.jpg

Fine Example 3
http://i1380.photobucket.com/albums/ah170/slayonnator/Parking%20fine%201_zpsw2xf5fit.jpg

Lamilad

I see Jake Burgess is pretending to be an employee of VCS again.

ajplag

Appreciate your help in switching it

You will also note that with the parking fines issued there is a discrepancy on the number of signs visibilt (bottom right box). On two of the fines this is '3' visible signs and another '2', surely this means that even their own employees can't tell what appropriate signage there is (is this a valid point for defence?).

ajplag

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ********
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
vs
ajplag (Defendant)
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Statement of Defence
I am Saarchy of Address, Postcode defendant in this matter.
It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle noted at the date of alleged breaches. However, the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds: -
1. Notwithstanding that the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012); the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver.
2. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the POFA and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event.
3. The Claimant alleges that parking charges notices were given for “failure to adhere to the advertised terms and conditions” but no terms are given nor is any valid breach established.
4. The place of the alleged breach is given as “development known as Globeside Business Park Infrastructure Marlow and Unit 3 Globeside Business Park” which contains many registered parcels of land as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.
5. Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of any land around Globeside Business Park Infrastructure Marlow and Unit 3 Globeside Business Park. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier, I have reasonable belief that they do not have authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
6. The Defendant was employed at the time of the alleged breaches at a company operating from leasehold properties at the Business Park which including parking allowances in adjacent parcels of land within the Business Park. These were signposted, including specific parking signs for the Defendant’s office near where parking charge notices were issued.
7. If it does transpire that the claimant is entitled to issue charges on the private land, certain parking spaces do not and cannot include spaces which are covered under the leases without specific authority being proved to be held from the owners of leases for each of those spaces.
8. The signage present in the area is woefully inadequate and at no point can be considered suitable for “Terms and Conditions” to be breached, or any form of contract whatsoever. This includes, but is not limited to, signage obstructed by hedgerow, ambiguously placed alongside parking bays, no parking signs on entry to Business Park etc.
9. No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information on parking regulations within this Business Park, from the first claim on 25th August 2015 (VC04733657) through to 21st October 2016 (VC05973000)
10. At no point were any significant signage changes made between August 2015 and October 2016, or further information supplied to leaseholders on the Business Park, by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. As such, any further tickets can be considered erroneous as the Defendant’s employer occupying adjacent office space.
11. Photos supplied of Parking fine VC05972813 show that the claimant's employee noting that there are only two visible parking signs, however, picutres VC05973000 shows that there are clearly 3 visible parking signs. As the claimant is unsure of how many visible parking signs there are at the site compounds the fact that signage is woeful and forbidding.
12. The claimant notes fine VC0545180A in their evidence, but pictures of the fine issued on that date and time show reference number VC05324551, thus rendering their total claim fraudulent and void.
13. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative’s costs.
14. No contract, terms and conditions or sum payable were never accepted by any driver.
15. The claimant’s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn’t an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.
16. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of the claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).
17. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice A7.1 which says that If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
18. The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio).
19. No LBC was sent, however I can provide a picture of their last letter to prove if this is the case. Note that the letter doesn't state LBCC or LBC on it, just a case of that it is going to court.
The facts stated in this defence are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed,
ajplag



I assume that I should attach all pictures to this part of the claim or in the witness statement?

Also that i still have time to submit in the next 48 hours based on below timescales?

A claim was issued against you on 20/03/2017
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 29/03/2017 at 23:53:29
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 30/03/2017 at 08:02:50

Thanks!!

ajplag

also send a copy of this to;

[EMAIL="litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk"]litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk[/EMAIL] and copy in [EMAIL="info@vehiclecontrol.co.uk"]info@vehiclecontrol.co.uk[/EMAIL] to make sure they get it. Also copy in you own email address so you know (and can prove) it's been sent successfully. the subject is the claim No.

ajplag

Just bumping this one to the top