Urgent help please VCS Claim form received

Bellaandme

Wow I'm overwhelmed with your supportive messages. Really appreciated!

Still haven't plucked up the courage to talk to the OH but hoping i can just show him your positive posts and he will be convinced to fight! As you say Couponmad, what have we both to lose by trying? Let's do this :T

Couponmad my local court will be Peterlee. The ticket was issued on private land on Hartlepool Marina (Hope I'm allowed to say this!) No valid ticket was displayed. Mandale own the land but it appears that VCS control the car park. Found some interesting info on Google about it may be covered by some bye laws therefore keeper liability may not apply, so that angle may be worth investigating? Will dig some more...

Huge thanks to every one who has taken the time to respond. Genuinely inspired now to fight!

Umkomaas

Found some interesting info on Google about it may be covered by some bye laws therefore keeper liability may not apply, so that angle may be worth investigating? Will dig some more...

You're really getting into this stuff now. I think you could enjoy the journey.

While this might be somewhat premature, you seem to have the right resilience and determination, so that as you gain more knowledge from this experience, you'd be a great future contributor on the forum, helping others against this sickening scourge affecting so many of this country's citizens.

Coupon-mad

No valid ticket was displayed.

Expired ticket? How long over, how many minutes?

Fluttering ticket blew off the dashboard?

No ticket at all due to the car park being pitch black at night, signs unlit, etc?

System

AFAIK the VCS signs are along the waterfront and there are few if any along the shop/restaurant side. There are P&D machines there and a large tariff board (which may not warn people about the £100)

Pics of the site now and of the tariff board would be useful to show the car in relation to the signs. The normal VCS signs are small and have dense type. They don't meet the requirements for clarity.

Bellaandme

Coupon-mad no ticket was purchased. Don't really have a valid excuse...We were meeting friends for lunch, were running late, didn't have change, had a vague notion that any tickets wouldn't be enforceable anyway. It's been a huge learning curve for us, we really didn't expect VCS to go as far as court action.

IamEmanresu we vaguely remember where we parked...I don't think it was near any signs. I can go and take some pics but the signage might have changed since Oct 17. I was planning to ask VCS in our SAR letter for date and time stamped photos of signage upon which they will be relying. We could expand this to ask for pictures of the vehicle in relation to the signage. Would this be a reasonable request to make?

Quentin

Your OP asks about whether you need to identify the driver

You were advised to edit out details of who was driving

Throughout here you are advised never to reveal who was driving.

You need to edit your post above to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

bargepole

Bellaandme wrote: »

... I really didn't expect VCS to go as far as court action ...

Not even after reading the 240,000 threads on here relating to VCS court cases? Or have you been living in a cave on Mars wearing earplugs and a blindfold for the past five years?

The Defence for this is quite straightforward. VCS do not rely on POFA 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the RK. They rely on the presumption, on balance of probabilities, that the RK was the driver, and will cite irrelevant cases such as Elliott v Loake, and CPS v AJH Films, as authority.

So your OH's Defence should include the following:


In the County Court

Claim No. XXXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

(Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX

(Defendant)

________
DEFENCE
________

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

2. The Defendant denies that any contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

3. On the material date, the Defendant was at [INSERT AT PLACE OF WORK, ABROAD, OR WHICHEVER APPLIES], and did not at any time enter the car park in question.

4. In order to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper, the Claimant is required to comply with the strict statutory conditions set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has failed to do so, and cannot, therefore, hold the Defendant liable.

5. The Claimant is known, in reported cases, to abrogate reliance on POFA, and to attempt to hold keepers of vehicles liable on an assumption, on balance of probabilities, that the keeper was also the driver. That assumption clearly cannot be made in this case.

6. In summary, the Claimant has no cause of action in this matter, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.


Statement of Truth

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

Signature

Name

Date

Bellaandme

Thanks for the reminder Quentin. Post now edited

Umkomaas

@Bellaandme - in case you aren't aware, bargepole has legal qualifications, is a greatly respected contributor to parking forums and highly successful in defending private parking court cases.

Bellaandme

That's great, thanks Bargepole. I'm afraid I've taken a blinkered view so far, I read the info I needed for the stage I was at, so didn't get a clear picture of the potential outcome. As I say it's been a steep learning curve...good to know they can still be challenged though :T

I've just been reading a thread by Stoneman who posted this; 'Bearing in mind the last time I was in court with this lot over 6 tickets all post POFA where non of them abided by section 4, the DJ said they only lost because they tripped themselves up, their WS said they were not relying on POFA but in chambers the solicitor said they would be, and if they hadn't done that the DJ would have allowed all of the tickets to stand.'

Do you think the above defence be enough to stand on it's own (especially as we would not be likely to attend court therefore defending on paper). I read that Stoneman won his case without being present but wondered if that was due to his previous history of wins against the same company? Should I try to include more information in my defence? I was thinking of investigating further into the possibility of the land being covered under bye-laws or would this be a waste of time?