Parking dispute help. County Court Claim issued, my DEFENCE in post #63

neopl

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Flipping heck NO. Think about what 'not relevant land' actually means!

Again, no, you are not getting what 'no keeper liability' means.

Unfortunately the damage is done, the letter has been posted on Friday. I did not include the parking permit but I did use the phrase ''and on which I have permission to park,''.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What does this mean now?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

It's not terrible but it means you've pretty much admitted to being the driver, and won't be able to use anything from the POFA 2012, going forward.

However if a small claim results from this, being the driver who has a permit, is a strong stance for a defendant anyway so it's not too much of an issue. We just would never have handed them that information.

neopl

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's not terrible but it means you've pretty much admitted to being the driver, and won't be able to use anything from the POFA 2012, going forward.

However if a small claim results from this, being the driver who has a permit, is a strong stance for a defendant anyway so it's not too much of an issue. We just would never have handed them that information.

That's what I first thought when you made your previous post, but then I reread what I wrote. They know that I am the keeper, and I just told them that as the keeper, I am, my car in essence is, allowed to park in the said spot. What I said does not necessarily implicate me as the driver, just as the keeper with a permission to park in the spot in question, both of which they know already. Of course, I understand that any normal person reading the statement I sent to them via post would deduce that I am the driver. But if we are specific and bent on technicalities, my statement did not actually state that I was the driver on the day/night in question. My mistake to even be using a language that can be misconstrued, but it's too late for that now



In any case, I am glad it is not such a big deal anyway, and I also believe that my strongest defence is being a resident with a parking permit. It actually boggles my mind that they would even attempt to bring a claim against me, considering that I am a resident with a permit.

Coupon-mad

It doesn't boggle our mind, have you seen how many claims are current, just like yours? Read some, by searching 'residential defence' on this forum - but beware of 'advice' from a new poster currently spamming the forum.

The long term regulars here have thousands of posts to their name. Never reply to any private message from a poster offering to help off forum, especially if they are new.

neopl

Hello,

the VCS strikes again.... After my last letter, they sent a response but did not address my letter in the slightest. I said to them:

''I would like for you to explain your comment in your previous letter to me. (I am including a copy, highlighted, in the envelope). You stated:

‘’We are satisfied that our Notice meets the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA’’.

I would like to bring to your attention that the land on which the car was parked, and on which I have permission to park, is council owned, and therefore there can be no POFA. This is not relevant land under the POFA definition due to it being council owned. Are you deliberately trying to mislead me? ''

Yesterday I received a letter from VCS, over 2 months since I sent them the one above. Their letter states:

RE: Intention to start Court Proceedings

I am disappointed to note that we have not reached an amicable agreement in respect of our ''Letter Before Claim'' despite our engagement in open correspondence. As such, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol clause 8.2 we are giving you 14 days notice of our intention to start court proceedings.

What is the correct course of action here? Should I wait, or does this letter warrant yet another response?

Many thanks to all

nosferatu1001

Thats their template, you should recognise it
You respond, noting their complete fialure to engage in any form of open correspondence, instead sending well known template,s and you are keeping a note of your costs.
You intend to apply to the court for astrike out, at their expense, and befor ethe case is allocated ot any track. They shouldbe aware of the cost implications of such an Order being granted.

beamerguy

Was it from Master Jake Burgess per chance. ?

VCS have got themselves a "copy and paste" letter then

I am disappointed to note that we have not reached an amicable agreement in respect of our ''Letter Before Claim'' despite our engagement in open correspondence. As such, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol clause 8.2 we are giving you 14 days notice of our intention to start court proceedings.

See this thread and read from post #58
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5903254/vcs-letter-before-claim-mistake-of-calling-vcs-when-receiving-ntk-help&page=3

neopl

beamerguy wrote: »

Was it from Master Jake Burgess per chance. ?

VCS have got themselves a "copy and paste" letter then

I am disappointed to note that we have not reached an amicable agreement in respect of our ''Letter Before Claim'' despite our engagement in open correspondence. As such, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol clause 8.2 we are giving you 14 days notice of our intention to start court proceedings.

See this thread and read from post #58
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5903254/vcs-letter-before-claim-mistake-of-calling-vcs-when-receiving-ntk-help&page=3

That's great, but I don't think I can use it completely as is because VCS did respond to my first response to their LBC. Please see my post #34. I sent them what looks like a SAR request, and they did reply but not fully. It is only my follow up that they did not respond to but instead sent me the silly template response.

beamerguy

neopl wrote: »

That's great, but I don't think I can use it completely as is because VCS did respond to my first response to their LBC. Please see my post #34. I sent them what looks like a SAR request, and they did reply but not fully. It is only my follow up that they did not respond to but instead sent me the silly template response.

If they have not fully responded then you are not in a position to defend yourself.

You are now disappointed that they have failed

neopl

How does this reply look?



I refer to your letter dated xxxx.

Vehicle Control Services (VCS) has failed to comply with their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol, by not responding to my letter dated xx xx xx; and by providing incomplete and what appears to be deliberately misleading information to Subject Access Request. This means that we have not been able to narrow the issues between us. If VCS instigate court action without providing the information requested which is xx weeks overdue, I will invite the court to strike the case for the aforementioned reasons.

I request again the information requested in my letter of xx xx xx (enclosed) and require an answer within seven days or a complaint to the ICO will be made without further warning.

Yours Faithfully


The bit about information being overdue, how much time do they have to respond to my letters as I am not sure the number of weeks to put in. The response to my SAR came two months after the request.


I mentioned that the SAR response has been deliberately misleading as they sited POFA, however, This is not relevant land under the POFA as it is council owned car park. Please see post #50 to see my reply to their SAR response - this is where I mentioned the relevant land POFA bit and is what they [FONT=&quot]completely[/FONT] ignored.

Many thanks