Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

Cyclopath

I don't understand why we would let VCS off supplying the landowner contract. Locus standi can be crucial (or indeed fatal) to the claimant's case.

As LoC123 wrote here: hxxps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73247428#25: "...the duty is on them to prove their case and they cannot hide behind confidentiality to avoid showing that they have locus standi to bring the claim." Later in that thread (#109) the OP wrote in his report of the court hearing: "Landowner Authority: This is what won it..."

Para 5.1 of the pre-action protocol states: "Where any aspect of the debt is disputed ... the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position." If the defendant disputes VCS's locus standi but the claimant refuses to disclose the landowner contract then how is the defendant to assess their position?

KeithP

Read again the first few lines of post #59, where C-M said:

...the landowner contract is not something that has to be disclosed in pre-action communications, they would just say it'd protected information due to the DPA and that they would show it in court evidence if required.

Coupon-mad

The point is that PPCs always refuse at this stage so, whilst the OP can ask for it, they won't get it yet, so it's not the crux of the issue at this stage.

Cyclopath

@KeithP: that's a load of tosh, according to Loadsofchildren123:

That old chestnut - commercial confidentiality. What a load of tosh.
Write to them and say that the duty is on them to prove their case and they cannot hide behind confidentiality to avoid showing that they have locus standi to bring the claim. Even if there are parts of the contract which are commercially sensitive, this simply cannot apply to the entire document. Offer an undertaking not to show the contract to a third party or discuss it with any third party, not to copy it save for any court bundle/documents, and to return all copies in your possession straight after the matter is concluded. When they don't reply, chase them for an answer. Idiots.

@Coupon-mad:
Until we see the landowner contract we don't know how important it is.

nosferatu1001

Yes, so you bring up their erfusal as evidence of unreasonable conduct
Unless you get a court to Order them ti disclose the contract, apart from repeatedly requesting it what do you expect the OP to do?

KeithP

Cyclopath wrote: »

@KeithP: that's a load of tosh...

Thank you for your contribution. I'm out.

RichieBoy56

I've been looking again at the windscreen ticket. It was one of those 'MyParkingCharge' ones. There is some debate on other forums whether this is in fact a Notice To Driver.
VCS must have accessed my registered keeper details within 8 days according to the dates on the NTK. If the 'MyParkingCharge' ticket is an NTD then the NTD was issued too early.


Is there any merit in pursuing this line of defence?

Umkomaas

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

I've been looking again at the windscreen ticket. It was one of those 'MyParkingCharge' ones. There is some debate on other forums whether this is in fact a Notice To Driver.
VCS must have accessed my registered keeper details within 8 days according to the dates on the NTK. If the 'MyParkingCharge' ticket is an NTD then the NTD was issued too early.


Is there any merit in pursuing this line of defence?

The DVLA have accepted that it's not a Notice to Driver (in the context of PoFA) and seem to be accepting the fact that the parking chimp's photo evidence, taken at the time, has equivalence with ANPR and other snap 'n trap Norris Cole style photos. They might even argue that the driver has a warning (via the MyParkingCharge ticket) that camera evidence has been taken, rather than the complete lack of warning with a Norris Cole, or the somewhat inconspicuous icons of cameras on PPC signage.

If you were to use it as a line of defence, you'd need to have your head fully around PoFA and understand all the arguments to put it before a Judge. Even then, I'm not sure you could get this to fly.

RichieBoy56

Hi All,
I have drafted my reply to VCS's most recent letter as below:




Dear Sirs,


I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated xxxxxxxx.


Your letter states that you enclosed a site overhead plan and copies of signage for the site. No such plan was enclosed and only one generic photograph of a single sign was enclosed with nothing to identify its location.


I require you to provide a copy of the site overhead plan and signage AS IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED PARKING CONTRAVENTION. I note that the signage at the site has recently been improved which I can only assume to be due to the inadequacy of the previous signage.


Driver/Keeper
I repeat my previous statements that I was not the driver on the day of the alleged parking contravention and I have a witness who will confirm this. There is no requirement in law for me to provide the name of the driver and subject them to your unfounded claims.


In order to attempt to transfer liability to the keeper using Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 you must meet very strict requirements. I believe that your Notice to Keeper (NTK) was not fully compliant with the requirements and as such keeper liability is not transferred.


You also say that, in the alternative, you will rely on the Law of Agency to transfer liability to the keeper. I assume by this that you are referring to Elliot Vs Loake to supports your 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 you incorrectly state, because of the lack of evidence as to who the driver actually 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. You are 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.


Copy of the contract between the landowner of the parking site
There is a duty on you to prove your case and you cannot hide behind confidentiality to avoid showing that you have locus standi to bring the claim. Even if there are parts of the contract which are commercially sensitive, this simply cannot apply to the entire document. I undertake not to show the contract to a third party or discuss it with any third party, not to copy it save for any court bundle/documents, and to return all copies in my possession straight after the matter is concluded.


Copy of the alleged contract with the driver
You claim that the contract was created on 11 June 2017, when the vehicle entered the private land and parked without payment of the parking tariff. This is totally incorrect; the alleged contravention date was 28 August 2017 and there was no means of paying a parking tariff. The alleged contravention was ‘parked for longer than the maximum period permitted’.


You are relying on the signage at the site to establish a contract with the driver. In order to create a contract the signage must comply with, amongst other things, the International Parking Community Code of Practice (to which you are signed). On the day of the alleged contravention the signage at the site fell woefully short of the standards required in Part E, Schedule 1 of the Code of Practice, in particular:

• There was no signage at all at the entrance to the site.
• The signage at the entrance to the site was confusing, the most prominent sign indicating ‘The Bed Shop FREE CAR PARK’.
• There was a second entrance to the car park with no signage.
• There was minimal signage around the site.
• There was no signage at the exit from the site.

I have photographic evidence of the signage (or lack of) at the site on the date of the alleged contravention.


I do not think that it is a coincidence that you did not include a site overhead plan with your previous letter. I believe that you know full well that the signage was inadequate.


To conclude I assert that:

• You cannot transfer driver liability to me (the keeper) as I have a witness who will state under oath that I was elsewhere on the date of the alleged parking contravention.
• You have not proved that you have the locus standi to bring this claim.
• The signage at the time of the alleged parking contravention was inadequate to form a contract with the driver.

As previously stated, if you persist with this harassment it is my intention to counter-claim for a sum not less than £500 (or such greater sum that the Judge might consider applies, given the facts) in compensation for my distress and that of my family, caused by your baseless and nasty financial attack.


I will also have no hesitation in seeking to claim punitive costs, pursuant to CPR Rule 27.14(2)(g) and I will not restrict those costs to £19 per hour (the usual LiP rate). I intend to seek recompense for the hours I have wasted on this at a rate of £60 ph (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) which I consider to be eminently reasonable, given the circumstances described.


I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that all charges are withdrawn and that my data as registered keeper is removed from all records held by you.


Yours faithfully,


Comments would be appreciated.

RichieBoy56

Comments would be appreciated please.
I need to get my response back this week as I am on holiday next week.
Thanks.