Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

nosferatu1001

Elliot v Locke is NOT the "law of agency"
That's CPS V AJH Films.
They claim that the keeper of a car who lets someone drive it , somehow magically tells the driver to enter into contracts in their behalf. It's complete rubbish, of course - the court case was a business, not a private individual, and the driver was working, so law of agency applied. It CANNOT do so here.

RichieBoy56

Thanks for the correction Nosferatu10.
I have revised my response 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 CPS v AJH Films to support your view that the driver of the vehicle was an agent of the registered keeper. This has previously been found in the small claims court to only be applicable in an employee/employer situation. This was not such a situation.


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 !!!8216;parked for longer than the maximum period permitted!!!8217;.


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 !!!8216;The Bed Shop FREE CAR PARK!!!8217;.
• 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,

Coupon-mad

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

RichieBoy56

Thanks for your comment C-m. Do you think that it's OK to send?
Do you think that having a witness to swear that I was elsewhere on the day is enough to kill this off?

Coupon-mad

Yes, send it.

No, nothing stops PPCs - unless you also get your MP involved.

The PPC are likely to sue you anyway because they abuse the court process, knowing it scares people into giving up & paying.

RichieBoy56

Thanks once again C-m.
Letter sent.
Let's see what happens next.

RichieBoy56

I have just been checking the local Planning Portal for the site at Brookshaw Retail Park and I cannot find any application for signage at the site. What I did find was permission for a temporary car park that expired in 2013, nothing thereafter.
Is planning permission required for a public car park on private land?

Umkomaas

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

I have just been checking the local Planning Portal for the site at Brookshaw Retail Park and I cannot find any application for signage at the site. What I did find was permission for a temporary car park that expired in 2013, nothing thereafter.
Is planning permission required for a public car park on private land?

All the stuff around planning permission/advertising consent has never had any traction at POPLA or Court level. Judges have said it is the responsibility of the local authority to enforce, and in respect of lack advertising consent - a criminal issue - it is not appropriate to the civil courts.

The best you can do with this is attempt to create some grief for the PPC via the local authority.

RichieBoy56

Thanks Umkomaas.

RobinofLoxley

Umkomaas wrote: »

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.

Ukomass, where has this been stated about the DVLA ageeing the NTD is not acually a NTD in respect of POFA when VCS are relying on it. Can you remember where it was, I've searched and can't find anything.

AFAIK this has never been tested in court, but I'm sure a Judge could be persuaded this notice stuck on a vehicle windscreen is intended to be a Notice to Driver.
It is obviously placed there for the attention of the driver and invites the driver to go to the myparkingcharge.co.uk website and pay the parking charge.

Surely a Notice to Driver in anyones eyes.

If it can be considered to be a NTD it does fail to meet the requirements of POFA as a valid NTD and also means the subsequent NTK is issued before the necessary 28 days minimum. VCS wil be stuffed if they try to utilise POFA.

P.S. I have noticed that VCS have recently changed the yellow & black chequered border on these to red & black.