PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

fadeinout

Umkomaas wrote: »

Is it a ticket roll with Excel already printed on the reverse? Maybe they ran out of VCS ticket roll?

It would be a more convincing case if VCS were pursuing in a clear and obviously signed Excel parking site.

But I'm no expert on contract law, so you will need to have this tested by the Judge.

It has the Excel logo printed on the front of the ticket, along with their VAT number. It says

For conditions see reverse & notice board.

I know the same tickets were being issued months later

The Albert Street cases in Birmingham differ as the signage states its an excel run car park yet VCS are making the claim. In my case, its the ticket thats being issued in Excel's name and VCS making the claim.

Hopefully, as coupon-mad suggests, the contract was formed between the driver and excel once the ticket was paid for

fadeinout

Just been looking at some emails and letters from the days following my appeal last year and I think theres a valid case for a counterclaim for data protection breaches. Probably getting way out of my depth with it and not sure i should discuss this here??

Castle

Normally Excel will lease/rent the car park from the landowner, pay the business rates, (see below), on it and then subcontract out the parking enforcement to VCS. The income from the pay and display tickets is kept by Excel who have to account for the VAT.

(*=You should check with the local council who pays the business rates).

fadeinout

Castle wrote: »

Normally Excel will lease/rent the car park from the landowner, pay the business rates, (see below), on it and then subcontract out the parking enforcement to VCS. The income from the pay and display tickets is kept by Excel who have to account for the VAT.

(*=You should check with the local council who pays the business rates).

I will follow that up, thanks.

As the parking enforcement is done by VCS (as per their signage which states controlled and managed by VCS) i dont understand why excel sent me correspondence regarding my appeal. My NTK was from VCS.

Excel initiated contact with me following my appeal of the PCN from VCS. Excel even supplied an excel email address to send any queries to.
VCS have therefore passed on my data to Excel without my consent, this is after I informed them i was not the driver. Im sure there is some data protection breach here.

The appeal was then turned down by VCS in an attachment sent via an email from Excel

fadeinout

Added elliott v loake and pofa to my ws

Also added at point 8 that excel issued the pdt in a vcs controlled car park. Ive raised the issue of how excel came into possesion of my details and queried a DPA breach.
Lastly added point 16 about claiming costs under 27.14

Thanks to anyone for taking their time to read it through and offer me any input

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver.

3.1 No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to the identity of the driver.

3.2 The Defendant, as the Registered Keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case.

3.3 The Claimant may refer to Elliott v Loake (1982) as case law which supports the view that the owner of the vehicle, if there is no contrary evidence, is the driver.
This is an incorrect representation of the case for the following reasons:
The facts of the case are that the appeal judge ruled that the appellant was the driver because of the ample evidence that he was the driver, and not, as the Claimant may incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver was.
In the case there was ample evidence that justified the magistrates to conclude that this man was driving his blue sports car on the night when it collided with the stationary car.
Additionally, a crucial part of the case was that forensic evidence showed that the appellant lied. Other material facts were that the driver had the only keys in his possession that night and that no-one else had permission to drive the car.
This case does not therefore introduce any binding legal principal as this case turned on its own facts. If any principle can be adduced, it is the well-known principle that once a witness has been proven to have lied in one respect, it is likely that their evidence elsewhere is also false.
The Claimant is also reminded of the general principle that the claimant has to prove their case. You have shown no evidence I was the driver. This is because you cannot, because I was not the driver.

4. Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greenslade was the POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015. I adduce, as evidence, Mr Greenslade’s wording from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 regarding keeper liability which confirms that there is ‘no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.’ Exhibit A.

4.1 Exhibit B is Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012, to which Henry Greensdale refers to in his report.

4.2 Parliament enacted this act specifically because there can be no assumption the keeper is the driver.

4.3 The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as the notice did not comply with the statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold me, the registered keeper, liable.

4.4 Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a registered keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and ‘relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the Notice to Keeper, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £*** for outstanding debt and damages.

4.5 It is submitted that the Claimant is unable to take steps to enforce the charges they allege apply, due to their own choice not to use the POFA Schedule 4 prescribed wording in their Notice to Keeper letter. Had they done so, then they might have had cause to pursue me as registered keeper (subject to other evidence, such as adequate notice from signage). In the absence of such notices, there is no cause of action

5. The Claimant, in their response to my appeal, Exhibit B, wrongly, make the assumption that I was the driver, this is after I had informed them that I was not the driver.

6. They also, wrongly, put the onus on me to prove I was not the driver. It’s up to the claimant to prove their case.

7. The vehicle in question in this case entered *** ********* *** ***** car park at **:** on ****** *** 201*.

8. At **:** a parking ticket was purchased for 2 hours of parking.

8.1 Exhibit C is the parking ticket issued.

8.2 The parking ticket issued was by Excel Parking Services Ltd, this is contrary to the signage around the car park which states the car park is managed and controlled by the Claimant. How can the claimant control the car park if the pay and display parking tickets are issued in another companies name?

8.3 I submit that any contract formed was between the unnamed driver and Excel Parking Services Ltd when the ticket was paid for and issued

8.4 The claimant has been fully aware of this fact since ** *** **** as they note the inclusion of the pay and display ticket, provided as evidence during my appeal to them, in their appeal rejection letter. Exhibit B

8.5 Therefore, I suggest the claimant has no right to claim on a contract they didn’t form.

8.6 I would also like to raise the issue of how Excel Parking Services Ltd obtained my personal information from the Claimant. My appeal to the parking charge notice was to the Claimant and not Excel Parking Services Ltd.

8.7 Yet the response to my appeal to the Claimant came from Excel Parking Services Ltd after I had informed the Claimant I was not the driver.

8.8 It can therefore be concluded that the Claimant passed on my personal information to Excel Parking Services Ltd without my prior consent.

8.8 I am aware the Claimant is within its rights to obtain the registered keeper’s details from the DVLA.

8.9 Once the Claimant was made aware by myself, that I, the registered keeper, was not the driver, using the registered keeper’s details in anyway, such as those in 8.6 is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

9. During payment at the ticket machine, an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error.

9.1 The Vehicle Registration Numbered entered in error was that of the 2nd family car. An easy mistake to make, and certainly not one that should take a year and a half to defend.

10. All vehicles entering and leaving the car park have their Vehicle Registration Numbers captured by ANPR cameras, as the Notice to Keeper letter issued to me indicaes. Exhibit D

10.1 The vehicle, whose Vehicle Registration Number was entered in error, never entered the car park that day.

10.2 The claimant’s records, which they have admitted to checking, through use of these ANPR cameras, will prove this beyond any doubt. Yet they have chosen, unbelievably and somewhat suspiciously, not to do so.

10.3 Parking companies have the technology to refuse to accept incorrect number plates. Their ANPR systems know which plates are in the car park at any time. Charging people for entering the wrong number is therefore purely a money-making exercise and has nothing to do with car park management.

10.4 The Claimant will have had an entry on their system that charges were paid for a vehicle which was not present, and so could reasonably be said to be aware that the problem was likely to have been caused by an incorrect registration. The Claimant clearly states in their reply to my appeal that they had reviewed their records.

11. I wish to bring to attention of the court the case of Excel v Burgess. Stockport. 03/07/2017. Exhibits E and F

11.1 On discovering an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number had been entered at the ticket machine, the Claimant’s sister company, Excel, whose name is on the parking tickets issued at the car park in question in this case, reduced the parking charge to a ‘goodwill’ gesture of £10, after an appeal.

11.2 If the Claimant believed the true loss to be £10, why was I never offered, at any stage, the same settlement?

11.3 I wish to put on record I would have objected to this settlement as parking was paid for in full and the car in question exited the car park around an hour before the expiry of the paid for parking ticket. Exhibits C and D.

12. I put it to the court there is no commercial justification for Private Parking Companies issuing parking penalty charges for incorrect Vehicle Registration Number entry.

12.1 ParkingEye v Heggie. Sheffield. 13/12/2013. Ruled in favour of the defendant after he had entered his 2nd car’s Vehicle Registration Number in error. Exhibit G

12.2 In that case, the claimant was made aware of the circumstances only after court proceedings had commenced and argued they couldn’t halt proceedings.

12.3 In my case, I made the Claimant aware that the driver had paid in full for a ticket in the 21 days after the issue of their Parking Charge Notice, almost 18 months ago. This is noted in their response to my appeal. Exhibit B

12.4 Therefore, I put it to the court, that the charge imposed is unconscionable and is completely distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis 04/11/2015

13. Despite informing the Claimant I was not the driver and of the sequence of events in this witness statement, during an appeal process to the International Parking Community (IPC), and pleas to check the claimant’s records to confirm payment was made with an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, it was to no avail.

14. Given the fact that the Claimant is an International Parking Community (IPC) Accredited Operator Scheme (AOS) member, it is not surprising the appeal was outright rejected because it is reported in the public domain that the IPC attracted AOS membership away from the rival ATA, by allegedly promising an 80% 'appeal win rate' in favour of operators. I have since discovered the conflict of interests behind the Trade Body and the so-called 'IAS' was exposed by MPs in the second reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, proposed legislation that has unanimous cross-party support in order to stamp out rogue 'tickets' such as this one.

15. The actions of the Claimant are predatory and opportunistic, which directly breaches the IPC Code of Practice, Part B 14.1. Exhibit H.

16. I will be pursuing costs under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g), as the Claimant has acted unreasonably,
• Pursuing a case that had no real prospect of success as they have known since *** *** 201* that I was not the driver
• Pursuing a claim, they had no right of claim to
• Breached the Data Protection Act by passing on my details to Excel Parking Services Ltd without my prior consent even after I had informed the Claimant I was not the driver.
• Caused undue stress and alarm by unwarranted and aggressive harassment in the form of letter after letter from various collection agencies, despite the facts stated in this witness statement.

17. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my costs which will be submitted separately.

fadeinout

The DJ is PE v Heggie ruled the Claimant could not possibly prove any loss whatsoever in that case (wrong vrm entered on ticket machine)

That was after the defendant had ignored everything at appeal stages.

Not sure I need to add any other examples of case law?

Im ready to file this to the court if anyone has any other input to add

Many thanks once again

Umkomaas

The DJ is PE v Heggie ruled the Claimant could not possibly prove any loss whatsoever

December 2013.

Then came Beavis - November 2015.

fadeinout

Umkomaas wrote: »

December 2013.

Then came Beavis - November 2015.

That's that thought out of the window then!

Excel v Burgess was 2017 so I'll leave that in, quote Heggie but distinguish my case from Beavis?

Umkomaas

quote Heggie but distinguish my case from Beavis?

How and on what basis?

Do you have full command of 'everything Beavis' in order to argue the finer points?

fadeinout

Umkomaas wrote: »

How and on what basis?

Do you have full command of 'everything Beavis' in order to argue the finer points?

The few distinguishable points I can make are

Beavis admitted he was the driver - I haven't. I'm defending as rk

Beavis overstayed

The charge is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and as this was a paid parking site and can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis