PCN Wrong registration number entered on ticket machine

fadeinout

As Ive never disclosed the identity of the driver, will POFA apply in my case?

KeithP

Depends on whether their PCN and NtK comply with PoFA.

Do they?

You need to compare, line by line, those docs with the relevant bits of PoFA.

There is a link to Schedule 4 of PoFA in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread.

fadeinout

KeithP wrote: »

Depends on whether their PCN and NtK comply with PoFA.

Do they?

You need to compare, line by line, those docs with the relevant bits of PoFA.

There is a link to Schedule 4 of PoPFA in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread.

I’ll look it up. Thanks again

fadeinout

KeithP wrote: »

Depends on whether their PCN and NtK comply with PoFA.

Do they?

You need to compare, line by line, those docs with the relevant bits of PoFA.

There is a link to Schedule 4 of PoFA in post #1 of the NEWBIES FAQ thread.

One of bargepole’s posts states I need to show their relevant documentation doesn’t adhere to PoFA AND prove I was elsewhere. So I think that’s out of the window.
Im drowning in a sea of info at the minute!

Would my, honest, defence of my partner entering her reg number by mistake, and me being in possession of said ticket, suffice?

Do I need to include more?

Coupon-mad

fadeinout wrote: »

Should I add that the claimant has incurred no loss?

No.

That argument has no legs on its own, due to the ridiculous bending over backwards to change the penalty law, by the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, to make Mr Beavis lose.

Add near the start, as #3 and #4 and #5:

- the usual defence point about the claimant not being the landowner, and not having standing to make contracts with drivers

- the usual defence point about the signage being wordy with the parking charge hidden in a wall of blue & yellow writing

- a defence point saying that VCS (or Excel, which one?) have not complied with the POFA, used a fake 'PCN' that never was a Notice to Driver, followed by a Notice to Keeper that ''assumes the keeper was the driver'' which is not a POFA-compliant notice and cannot hold the keeper liable

Find the above in any VCS or Excel defence.

Did they use BW Legal? If so, search BW Legal defence and add more.

Is this at Albert Street Birmingham, or the Peel Centre, or where?

Quentin

fadeinout wrote: »

As Ive never disclosed the identity of the driver, will POFA apply in my case?

You need to edit your posts then to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against youi

fadeinout

fadeinout wrote: »

One of bargepole’s posts states I need to show their relevant documentation doesn’t adhere to PoFA AND prove I was elsewhere. So I think that’s out of the window.
Im drowning in a sea of info at the minute!

Would my, honest, defence of my partner entering her reg number by mistake, and me being in possession of said ticket, suffice?

Do I need to include more?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No.

That argument has no legs on its own, due to the ridiculous bending over backwards to change the penalty law, by the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, to make Mr Beavis lose.

Add near the start, as #3 and #4 and #5:

- the usual defence point about the claimant not being the landowner, and not having standing to make contracts with drivers

- the usual defence point about the signage being wordy with the parking charge hidden in a wall of blue & yellow writing

- a defence point saying that VCS (or Excel, which one?) have not complied with the POFA, used a fake 'PCN' that never was a Notice to Driver, followed by a Notice to Keeper that ''assumes the keeper was the driver'' which is not a POFA-compliant notice and cannot hold the keeper liable

Find the above in any VCS or Excel defence.

Did they use BW Legal? If so, search BW Legal defence and add more.

Is this at Albert Street Birmingham, or the Peel Centre, or where?

Thanks for your detailed reply. I’m at work this evening but I will get back to you with the points you raised tomorrow

Thanks again

fadeinout

Quentin wrote: »

You need to edit your posts then to remove details of who was driving


The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against youi

My appeal last year stated my partner was the driver. I didnt name her. She entered her registration number in error. The ticket she got shows her registration number not mine. That registration number never entered the car park that day. Their cameras would have shown that.
They refused.
They can monitor me all they want, I’ve got nothing to hide

fadeinout

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No.

That argument has no legs on its own, due to the ridiculous bending over backwards to change the penalty law, by the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, to make Mr Beavis lose.

Add near the start, as #3 and #4 and #5:

- the usual defence point about the claimant not being the landowner, and not having standing to make contracts with drivers

- the usual defence point about the signage being wordy with the parking charge hidden in a wall of blue & yellow writing

- a defence point saying that VCS (or Excel, which one?) have not complied with the POFA, used a fake 'PCN' that never was a Notice to Driver, followed by a Notice to Keeper that ''assumes the keeper was the driver'' which is not a POFA-compliant notice and cannot hold the keeper liable

Find the above in any VCS or Excel defence.

Did they use BW Legal? If so, search BW Legal defence and add more.

Is this at Albert Street Birmingham, or the Peel Centre, or where?

Hi,

I've reworked my defence. The claimant is VCS and there is no mention of BW Legal in any of the court papers of particulars of claim. Not sure what you mean with Albert Street or Peel centre?
Should i include in point 2 that the registration number was entered incorrectly?



I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle xxx.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:


1. I was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged offence in question. The claimant is aware of this from my contact with them.

2. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.

3. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an unredacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. A Managing Agent is not the Landowner.

4. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). Vehicle Control Services Ltd do not use compliant NTKs, failed to serve one and cannot hold a registered keeper liable.

5. This Claimant uses ANPR camera systems to process data but fails to comply with the Information Commissioner's 'Data Protection Code of Practice for Surveillance Cameras and Personal Information'. This Code confirms that it applies to ANPR systems, and that the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations as a data processor. Members of the British Parking Association AOS are required to comply fully with the DPA, as a pre-requisite of being able to use the DVLA KADOE system and in order to enforce parking charges on private land. The Claimant's failures to comply include, but are not limited to:

a) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and
b) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and
c) Failure to regularly evaluate whether it was necessary and proportionate to continue using ANPR at all times/days across the site, as opposed to a less privacy-intrusive method of parking enforcement (such as 'light touch' enforcement only at busy times, or manning the car park with a warden in order to consider the needs of genuine shoppers and taking into account the prevailing conditions at the site on any given day), and
iv) Failure to prominently inform a driver in large lettering on clear signage, of the purpose of the ANPR system and how the data would be used, and
v) Lack of the 'Privacy Notice' required to deliver mandatory information about an individual's right of subject access, under the Data Protection Act (DPA). At no point has the Defendant been advised how to apply for a Subject Access Request, what that is, nor informed of the legal right to obtain all relevant data held, and This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

6. The claimant claims there was a breach of contract yet even if there was a purported contract between the unidentified driver and the Claimant, it was illegal at its formation because it was incapable of being created without an illegal act (the failure to comply with points #5 i - v above, as part of the legal obligations that must be communicated up front and/or undertaken by a consumer-facing service provider, some of which were required even before commencing any use of ANPR at all)

7. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether or not there was an intention to break the law; the contract will be void and treated as if it had never been entered into. As such, the asserted contract cannot be enforced.

8. I would like the Court to take note that the defendant has been aggressively harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable for the claimant!!!8217;s costs.

9. The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant!!!8217;s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.


I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true.

nosferatu1001

2. Any alleged breach of contract was entirely de minimis, as parking was fully paid for. The Claimant is fully aware that parking was correctly and completely paid for.

This is a legal argument. Yours isnt. Evidence comes later. You are writing legal arguments now.