Acknowledgement of Service submitted in response to court claim Vehicle Control Services

KeithP

You would be wise to remove the Claim Number from that post.

It uniquely identifies you.

Nico25

Thank you! When you think you've checked, checked and triple checked...

Coupon-mad

I now realise that I could have saved my self lots of worry if I'd have appealed/ responded to the correct parties in the tried and tested ways at the right times - hindsight is a wonderful thing!

No you couldn't, not with VCS. There's no appeal worth trying with any IPC firm. But you could have complained to the retail park/Store Managers.

2. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, but the Claimant is not entitled to demand that the driver is identified. [STRIKE]admitted.[/STRIKE]

Remove #5 entirely, as that's a rant about their solicitors; not relevant.

And there does not have to be a 'reasonable adjustment' for breastfeeding mothers, so don't use that phrase. The maternity provisions of the EA only cover up to 6 month old babies anyway I believe, and merely say a few things, i.e. that a woman cannot be harassed or treated badly due to being pregnant or is breastfeeding a small baby.

But not a 'reasonable adjustment' (disabled people only).

Nico25

No you couldn't, not with VCS. There's no appeal worth trying with any IPC firm. BUt you could have complained to the retail park/Store Managers.

Thank you, that puts my mind at rest slightly. I did complain to the store and the manager has requested that the charge be cancelled by VCS, however they haven't replied to the store manager's request as yet. I'm assuming they are likely to ignore it.

And there does not have to be a 'reasonable adjustment' for breastfeeding mothers, so don't use that phrase. The maternity provisions of the EA only cover up to 6 month old babies anyway I believe, and merely say a few things, i.e. that a woman cannot be harassed or treated badly due to being pregnant or is breastfeeding a small baby.

Thank you for these suggestions. I have made the changes and I am getting ready to submit. Should I remove all references to the EA, or just the bits about 'reasonable adjustments'?

Thank you again for all of your help!

onlyfoolsandparking

Nico25 wrote: »

Thank you, that puts my mind at rest slightly. I did complain to the store and the manager has requested that the charge be cancelled by VCS, however they haven't replied to the store manager's request as yet. I'm assuming they are likely to ignore it.

I would ask the store manager for proof of his request to cancel the charge, there must be something in writing somewhere, I,m guessing he emailed them.


That proof he requested the cancellation would certainly swing things in your favour IMO.

Nico25

Thanks, she’s sending it to me this week - store manager was off ill so I’ve been chasing it up... would I attach it with my defence or include in WS if it gets that far?

KeithP

Nico25 wrote: »

... would I attach it with my defence or include in WS if it gets that far?

It's evidence - to be introduced at Witness Statement time.

Nothing gets attached to a Defence, although it might be prudent to mention it.

Nico25

I have included in point 6 that the store have requested the cancellation of the charge.

I now have a copy of the email that the store sent and the reply from VCS as Excel Parking). The request to cancel is pretty basic. The reply from Excel is: Your request has been forwarded to the relevant department for investigation.This was on 21st Sept.

I am hoping to submit my defence tomorrow. I have pasted it below. Anything that needs changing before I send? Again, thank you so much for all of your advice, it is so valuable to me!

Can I also ask, how likely is it that I will have to go to a hearing? Is the next stage that VCS see my defence and decide whether to proceed?

COUNTY COURT Claim No.: XXXX
Between
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from my vehicle having been parked on 2nd November 2017 in a free customer car park at XXXX. The alleged contravention is an overstay of 48 minutes, where parking is advertised as free for 2 hours.
2. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, but the Claimant is not entitled to demand that the driver is identified. To protect that party from rogue parking firms (an industry exposed as 'deliberately deceptive', often choosing elderly or infirm people to pursue, and a 'disgrace to this Country' by MPs in a vociferous Parliamentary debate) the driver will not be named by the Defendant, a right positively enshrined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Preliminary matters:
3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) issued to the Defendant do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “charge notice” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities in my defence and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.
4. The claimant failed to provide a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
5. At the time of the alleged contravention the defendant was a breastfeeding mother with a 7 month old baby. During the defendant’s visit to the Retail Park, they were forced to return to the vehicle to breastfeed and change their baby. Breastfeeding mothers are protected under section 17 (4) of the Equalities Act 2010 (The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.) A penalty charge for an 'overstay' is not a lawful claim against a person with 'protected characteristics'.
6. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant contacted the customer services manager and store manager for XXXX at the Retail Park, both of whom expressed disappointment that the Claimant was suing their customers. The store manager sent an email on 15th September 2018 stating her wish that the unfair PCN be cancelled. The Claimant replied on 21st September 2018 to say that they are investigating.
7. Signage in the car park was inadequate. Signs could not be easily read and understood without the driver turning their head away from the direction of driving. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required. The Defendant denies liability for the charge because they did not enter into any contract with the Claimant because no contract was offered by the Claimant's signage.
8. The Notice to Keeper received by the defendant did not comply with PoFA: As the registered keeper, the Defendant submits that they were not afforded any method by which to appeal to the landowner or retail agent, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner or retail agent. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the Retailer/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so.
9. 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). The Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable. According to the Claimant’s response to the Defendant’s Subject Access Request, the request for keeper details was made on 6th December 2017, 35 days after the alleged contravention. This failed to comply with PoFA regulations which stipulate that where no Notice to Driver was issued, the creditor or its agent must have made their application for the keeper’s name and address to the DVLA no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.
10. The claimant has not declared if the claim is against the keeper of driver of the vehicle; or provided any evidence of who the driver was. The event was so long ago, the Claimant is wasting the court's time with speculative claims that neither identify the driver nor clearly explain the cause of action.
11. 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 un-redacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. This information was requested from the Claimant by the Defendant by email on 7th September 2018 to which no reply was received.
12. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the car being parked for over 2 hours. They have only produced ANPR timestamps for entry to, and exit from, the car park; which indicate an overstay (of 48 minutes).The defendant was harassed and intimidated by a sequence of ‘debt collection’ letters, at a time when no actual debt has been established.

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

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

---

(Defendant)

---

(Date)

KeithP

Is the next stage that VCS see my defence and decide whether to proceed?

That's right.

Coupon-mad

You need 'the POFA' here, to explain what that acronym means later:

2. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, but the Claimant is not entitled to demand that the driver is identified. To protect that party from rogue parking firms (an industry exposed as 'deliberately deceptive', often choosing elderly or infirm people to pursue, and a 'disgrace to this Country' by MPs in a vociferous Parliamentary debate) the driver will not be named by the Defendant, a right positively enshrined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA).

I'd swap these round as shown, and add the bit I've shown you (in red here):

6. Signage in the car park was inadequate. Signs at this location are a wordy jumble, in dark colours with no white space, and inadequate notice of the 'parking charge' itself, contrary to the POFA and the IPC code of Practice. [STRIKE]and could not be easily read and understood without the driver turning their head away from the direction of driving. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required.[/STRIKE]

6.1. The Defendant denies liability for the charge, not least because [STRIKE]they[/STRIKE] the driver on the material date did not enter into any contract with the Claimant because no contract was [STRIKE]offered by the Claimant's signage[/STRIKE] 'there to be seen' and the £100 was buried in small print and not prominently proclaimed in the 'large lettering' and contrast that would meet Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule' for such an onerous term.

6.2. The Claimant may attempt to rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, however, the only similarity with this case is the fact that in Beavis it was also a '2 hours free' car park. By contrast, here, the signage is inadequate, so no contract was capable of being agreed, there is no 'commercial justification' or legitimate interest, and the Claimant has failed to either identify the driver, or comply with the POFA to enable them to rely upon the only statute or rule allowing 'keeper liability' on private land.


7. The Notice to Keeper received by the defendant did not comply with PoFA in terms of mandatory wording (omitted and/or misstated), and in terms of the date served to the Defendant registered keeper.

7.1. Further, [STRIKE]as the registered keeper,[/STRIKE] the Defendant submits that they were not afforded any information or method by which to complain [STRIKE]appeal[/STRIKE] to the landowner or retail agent, [STRIKE]nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner or retail agent,[/STRIKE] as required for any distance contract. If [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the Defendant could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the Retailer/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, [STRIKE]I[/STRIKE] the Defendant would have done so much earlier.

8. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant contacted the customer services manager and store manager for XXXX at the Retail Park, both of whom [STRIKE]expressed disappointment[/STRIKE] were not happy to support [STRIKE]that the Claimant was[/STRIKE] a third party parking firm suing their customers. The store manager sent an email on 15th September 2018 stating her wish that the unfair PCN be cancelled, and this clearly nullifies any legitimate interest excuse, and the PCN would have been cancelled earlier had the Claimant openly informed recipients of NTKs of their complaint options.

8.1. Instead, the Claimant routinely channels victims towards the kangaroo court of the IPC Trade Body 'appeal' system which was exposed by Parliamentary debate in February, as having an astonishing conflict of interests, with the so-called' Independent Appeals Service being run by the IPC Trade Body Directors, who also have a significant interest in taking parking cases to court under the guise of robo-claim firm Gladstones Solicitors. The Defendant had no chance at appeal, but clearly would have had the unfair charge cancelled at the outset by the Store Manager, had they known this was even an option.[STRIKE]The Claimant replied on 21st September 2018 to say that they are investigating.[/STRIKE]

I would remove #12, as the overstay was significant and they don't have to prove parking. Was there a reason for it, there wasn't a disabled or elderly person in the party was there?

Or are there lots of shops and 2 hours is simply unworkable for a family visiting more than one outlet?

You also need to change all your ''I'' to ''The Defendant'' throughout the Defence.