VCS Letter Before Claim

rb331

After ignoring several bullying letters letters I have finally received a letter before claim at the , it was for 'parking longer than 120 minutes' where they claim the person driving over stayed by around 30 minutes in sheffield Berkeley Centre. I am not sure how this was possible but there are 2 users of the car and the fine print says you cannot return. I am just wondering what the best defence is for the sum of now £200 for the claimed over staying 30 minutes!

My questions are:

1) Do I go with the postal ANPR camera PCN parking eye defence in the sticky?

2) Do I have to fill out a reply form they sent ANNEX 1 with regards to them asking questions: do I owe debt, i owe some but not all, i do not owe debt etc etc and then ANNEX 2 financial statement. Surely I don't need to send these crooks this filling out a financial statement? What do I send as the minimum legal requirement?

Many many thanks for your help in advance.

R

Quentin

Everyone is politely asked to read up on this in the Newbies FAQ thread near the top of the forum before starting a new thread

Go there now to learn about the game you are now caught up in

#2 covers the whole court claim scenario from lbcca to hearing

You don't need to send back their forms! You don't need your defence until you actually get a claim from the court

Read up on responding to your lbcca

Coupon-mad

1) Do I go with the postal ANPR camera PCN parking eye defence in the sticky?

You are not at defence stage yet.
But when you are, amalgamate the ICO CoP ANPR data protection breach argument with a VCS or Excel defence, where POFA and 'no keeper liability' is also argued, and look for one mentioning Excel v Cutts - a case about dodgy signs.

2) Do I have to fill out a reply form they sent ANNEX 1 with regards to them asking questions: do I owe debt, i owe some but not all, i do not owe debt etc etc and then ANNEX 2 financial statement. Surely I don't need to send these crooks this filling out a financial statement?

No.

Why not search the forum for VCS (or Excel) LBCCC and copy a reply already here?

rb331

My apologies I have just realised I have only a few days to submit a defence to county court online for parking in one of those car parks where its a 2 hour max stay by VCS , automated fine using thier cameras in the car park. I assumed was free to park. I ignored all the letters this is the first time i have ever received court papers. From what I gather i have 28 days from date of service after submitting the acknowledgement of service which I did a couple of weeks back. . I have been doing some research and found that they have also taken someone else to small claims court back in 2014 (they had multiple tickets) for the same car park the judge upheld the Inadequate signage, their lack of position to bring a claim as they are not landowners and the motorist won. I have unforntunaley had some family problems to deal with and almost forgot about this.

Please advise if there are templates to construct a defence, if anyone could help me I would be most grateful.

Many thanks


I have posted the above on direction of closing the other post. My apologies about that I could not find the old one logging in on my phone but found it using the laptop! I need to submit a defence today online through MCOL talk about leaving it last minute! Many thanks for your help with this please let me know if the defence looks good.

rb331

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ———, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in the ‘free to use’ car park at Berkeley precinct , Sheffield.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The one sign to the left of the car park upon entry ‘2 Hrs Max Stay’ is too small on one side of entry and blocked by standing pedestrians. There are no signs in any of the bays on the side of the car park where the defendants vehicle was alledgely parked. The terms on the claimant's signage far on the other side of the car park are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand within inches directly in front and below the sign.

6. The claimant has not demonstrated the reason of financial loss caused and unreasonable penalty of £100 due to the defendant’s vehicle overstaying 33 minutes.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

rb331

I also found this on another forum from 2014 (It wouldn't allow me to post a link) : Wed, 2 Apr 2014 - 15:37
Wanted to share my latest experience with VCS Sheffield.

VCS have today taken me to small claims for the sum of £735 for 7 alleged breaches of their two hour parking limit in Berkeley Precinct, Sheffield. I ignored all letters, threats of court action received from them last year until I was issued with court papers. I submitted a defence, helped by fab forum members, based upon three points.... Inadequate signage, their lack of position to bring a claim as they are not landowners, and finally the lack of ability to demonstrate financial loss and unreasonable penalty of £100. The judge did bit accept my first two points but rejected their claim on the basis of lack of evidence to support financial loss. Their claim bundle contained a detailed breakdown of alleged costs if a breach to justify the £100 penalty but these were ambiguous, mainly linked to business costs and difficult for them to justify. Furrhermore their estimate of loss did not refer to my case specifically, or berkeley precinct, where it is infact free to park. They were instructed to pay me costs.

As I said I had support from two forum members and one came with me as a Lay represtativevat court today and did a brilliant job for which I am very grateful. The arguments were complex and VCS will no doubt go away and do their homework on what costs they can legitimately claim. If anyone wants more info message me! Don't let them bully you into submission!

Coupon-mad

this is the first time i have ever received court papers

same as all the other newbies here, all new to everyone. But easily dealt with by looking at similar defences and copying/adapting one.

From what I gather i have 28 days from date of service after submitting the acknowledgement of service which I did a couple of weeks back.

You have a max 33 days, but try not to push it.

Look in the NEWBIES thread right now, post #2, where I have updated the example defences. I assume your defence will have to be:

- you do not know which driver was driving, and

- the signs cannot have been clear (they never are).

So, start with bargepole's concise template appeal about unclear signs*...

...and add in extra points gleaned from any ANPR/overstay defence and a point about no keeper liability because the car has more than one driver, there's no evidence as to who was driving, and VCS didn't comply with the POFA and can't rely on CPS v AJH Films either...

You will find that on a recent VCS defence I wrote, that's also in the sticky.



* I won't link it, the NEWBIES thread is for you to read & use for research!

Coupon-mad

Just noticed you posted a draft defence while I was typing.

Remove this, as no PPC has to show LOSS:

6. The claimant has not demonstrated the reason of financial loss caused and unreasonable penalty of £100 due to the defendant’s vehicle overstaying 33 minutes.

Replace it with what you find about these points I just made:

...and add in extra points gleaned from

- any ANPR/overstay defence and
- a point about no keeper liability because the car has more than one driver, there's no evidence as to who was driving,
- and VCS didn't comply with the POFA
- and can't rely on CPS v AJH Films either...

You will find that on a recent VCS defence I wrote, that's also in the sticky.

rb331

Many many thanks for the superfast reply , am amazed and very grateful ! I have now amended to read the following. For some reason I cannot find your post regarding the VCS defence you wrote with the CPS vs AJH information , please could you direct me on how to search for it?


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ———, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in the ‘free to use’ car park at Berkeley precinct , Sheffield.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). The vehicle has more the one driver and the claimant has not provided any evidence as to who was driving. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant’s signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The one sign to the left of the car park upon entry states ‘2 Hrs Max Stay’ can be blocked by standing pedestrians on the footpath and contains no terms and conditions. There are no signs in any of the bays on the side of the car park where the vehicle was parked. The terms on the claimant's signage on the other side of the car park are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would need to stand within inches directly in front and below the sign.

6. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 “POFA 2012” Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold the defendant liable under the strict ”keeper liability” provisions:

The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled “Parking Charge Notice” which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.

7.The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper’s vehicle over stayed the maximum time of 2 hours. The 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:

i) Lack of an initial privacy impact assessment, and

ii) Lack of an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, considering concepts that would impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle, and

iii) 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

7.1. This Claimant has therefore failed to meet its legal obligations under the DPA.

7.2. In a similar instance of DPA failure when using ANPR cameras without full DPA compliance - confirmed on this Claimant's Trade Body website in a 2013 article urging its members to comply - Hertfordshire Constabulary was issued with an enforcement notice. The force were ordered to stop processing people's information via ANPR until they could comply. The Information Commissioner ruled that the collection of the information was unlawful; breaching principle one of the DPA.


8. Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a remote car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

Use the "Search this forum" button, go Advanced, enter "CPS vs AJH" and change show threads to show posts.

nosferatu1001

Its also easy to understand
A company can order employees to do tasks, meaning they are then responsible for the employees actions - they have liability.
Thats what CPS vs... turned on.

If the driver was on their own private business, ie not connected to a company, then there can be no such liability.

Its written about so often.