VCS Sheffield County Court Claim Form Received

qazitory

VCS have been sending me letters for a PCN related to '40) Parked in a Disabled space without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge' related to 27/03/17.

The car is registered in my name, but I was not driving at that time. I know who was but I haven’t disclosed their details to VCS. They did have a disabled badge as the passenger had one. They were visiting the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield for the gym. I was not there, I was at home.

With every letter I have received, I have repeatedly told them I am not responsible for the debt and to stop contacting me.... but the letters always continue either from them (VCS) or the ‘debt' companies – DRP or Zenith.

I have acknowledged the claim online, although I’m working through the help guide.

Is it just a case I deny the charge as I was not in charge of the vehicle at the time? I can’t go into details of parking space as I was not present at the time?? Do I need to prove where I was?

I have copes of the emails/letters sent apart from the PCN from the time, as I can’t find it as it was so long ago (the driver gave it me).

I went down to the car park earlier today and I can actually understand why the spaces would be missed as disabled.

The road markings are hardly visible and would have been invisible on a Monday night at 9.30pm on March.

There is a sign about the disabled parking but it's facing the opposite way to where the car pull in.

Would this be worth mentioning as part of the defense??

https://ibb.co/cJecSK
https://ibb.co/kgAj7K
https://ibb.co/hafvEz

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

Is it just a case I deny the charge as I was not in charge of the vehicle at the time?

Not 'just' that, as the Judge might be clueless about the POFA, and think they can assume (they can't), so you need other defence points.

I can’t go into details of parking space as I was not present at the time??

Course you can, you have photos and you spoke to the driver about it ages ago when appealing!

Your photos are great, and clearly you got those, as a way of defending your case.

Do I need to prove where I was?

It will be good if you can. But at defence stage you attach NOTHING.

This is not evidence stage (yet).

Defence is the stage where you answer what the Particulars of Claim say: so, admit that your believe the car was parked at that location on the material date, but deny being the driver, admit being the registered keeper, deny they complied with the POFA, so deny liability, deny they provided adequate signs & lines, deny there was any contravention, or 'relevant contract', or 'relevant obligation' and assert that, in any case, there was a disabled passenger in the car so even if the Court is minded to think that bay is well marked(!) the occupants of the car were entitled to use that bay anyway.

I have copes of the emails/letters sent apart from the PCN from the time, as I can’t find it as it was so long ago (the driver gave it me).

OK, you can also send VCS a SAR, addressed to their Data Protection Officer (look at their privacy notice on their website and it might give their DPO's email). It's a good idea to force the DPO to supply ALL photos taken on the day, which will show how bad the lines were & how dark it was, and to supply all notes, case updates, letters and the PCN, DVLA look up if they did one, ask for all of that.

Read about SARs in the thread I started about GDPR, in June.

I went down to the car park earlier today and I can actually understand why the spaces would be missed as disabled.

So can we.

The road markings are hardly visible and would have been invisible on a Monday night at 9.30pm on March.

There is a sign about the disabled parking but it's facing the opposite way to where the car pull in.

Agreed. Terrible, in fact almost a trap.

Would this be worth mentioning as part of the defense??

Is the Pope Catholic?! The signs & lines are VITAL to their case, and you have damning evidence.

DEFENCE

qazitory

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

3rd September 2018

KeithP

qazitory wrote: »

KeithP wrote: »

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

3rd September 2018

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to hone the Defence to perfection.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the House of Commons recently

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41 recently.

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

qazitory

I've composed the defence below, although I have copied from other posts (I hope thats allowed!):
In the County Court

Claim Number: XXXXX

Between:

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
2 Europa Court
Sheffield Business Park
Sheffield
S9 1XE

And

XXXX (Defendant)

DEFENCE

Preliminary

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver and for the reasons stated below and denies that she is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.
2. The facts are that the vehicle in question was parked at the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield on Monday, 27th of March, 2017.
3. The Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:
Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim

Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of POFA 2012

4. No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. The Defendant was at their home address during the stated time so could not agree to the terms of such parking.
5. Keeper liability has not passed in accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (also referred to as PoFA). For the Claimant to recover the parking charge from the Defendant, the Claimant must have followed the strict requirements in the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, which provides that liability can be transferred from driver to keeper. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott v Loake [1982] in which there was irrefutable evidence of the driver’s identity. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. In the case of Excel v Mr L. (17/11/2016, Skipton), the judge dismissed the claim, summing up that: ether the claimant could prove the defendant was the driver, which they could not; or the claimant could comply with PoFA to pursue the defendant as the keeper, which it was proved they did not. In POPLA’s ‘Annual Report of the Lead Adjudicator 2015’, on ‘Understanding Keeper Liability’, the expert opinion of PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, was that:
‘However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.’
6. Schedule 4 of PoFA also states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper under keeper liability is the amount specified on the notice to keeper. None of the sums whether separately or jointly as a total correspond with the amounts on the notices to keeper therefore the claimant has failed to comply with the provisions. Therefore, the Defendant has no liability in law and the court is invited to strike out this claim with immediate effect.
7. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulate the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all this information is not present, then the Notice to Keeper is invalid.

No contract on any terms

8. A contract was never formed. There was never a contractual relationship, whether categorised as a licence or some form of contractual permission, because the signage is not adequate. Photographs of the area can be provided as the yellow disabled road markings are faded. Two small signs which state the area is for disabled parking, are pointed away from the road so are unreadable to drivers. Also the road conditions at 8.45pm on a Monday night in March would have all the markings completely unreadable. The passenger in the car also had a valid disabled pass and was entitled to park there. Failure to provide clear signage relating to charges and terms of parking invalidates any alleged contract between the claimant and the driver let alone the keeper.
9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the PCN issued on 27/03/17 to £160 on subsequent correspondence. This appears to be an added cost with no /apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

The agreed damages clause is a penalty

10. The signage provides for a parking charge of £100 if the terms and conditions of parking are breached. The Claimant seeks £185 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty.
11. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis the Supreme Court recast the test to be applied when seeking to distinguish a liquidated damages clause from a penalty clause. To engage a penalty the question was whether the relevant provision was “unconscionable” or “extravagant” (Lord Hodge at [221]). The full test was expounded by Lord Hodge (at [255]).
12. The Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge to the Defendant of £120 is evidently extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract.
13. The Defendant therefore disputes the amount claimed, as it comprises excessive and non-contractual elements, and costs must be proved. With reference to paragraph 31, the Claimant claims a sum of £185 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied).
14. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge before a Notice to Keeper is issued. In any event the Protection of Freedoms Act is clear that a vehicle keeper would only be liable for the amount of the penalty charge notice, and no further costs.
15. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds or at the very least order better particulars and evidence from the claimant in order for the defence to be properly based on the facts of the case. The defendant invites the court to dismiss any evidence which the claimant wishes to rely on during the hearing if this is not disclosed to the defendant prior.


The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

(Name) (Signature) (Date)

qazitory

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd September, and having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to hone the Defence to perfection.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to [EMAIL="CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk"]CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk[/EMAIL]
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Thank you

KeithP

You would be wise to remove your claim number from that post.

It uniquely identifies you to the Claimant.

qazitory

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not 'just' that, as the Judge might be clueless about the POFA, and think they can assume (they can't), so you need other defence points.

Course you can, you have photos and you spoke to the driver about it ages ago when appealing!

Your photos are great, and clearly you got those, as a way of defending your case.

It will be good if you can. But at defence stage you attach NOTHING.

This is not evidence stage (yet).

Defence is the stage where you answer what the Particulars of Claim say: so, admit that your believe the car was parked at that location on the material date, but deny being the driver, admit being the registered keeper, deny they complied with the POFA, so deny liability, deny they provided adequate signs & lines, deny there was any contravention, or 'relevant contract', or 'relevant obligation' and assert that, in any case, there was a disabled passenger in the car so even if the Court is minded to think that bay is well marked(!) the occupants of the car were entitled to use that bay anyway.

OK, you can also send VCS a SAR, addressed to their Data Protection Officer (look at their privacy notice on their website and it might give their DPO's email). It's a good idea to force the DPO to supply ALL photos taken on the day, which will show how bad the lines were & how dark it was, and to supply all notes, case updates, letters and the PCN, DVLA look up if they did one, ask for all of that.

Read about SARs in the thread I started about GDPR, in June.

So can we.

Agreed. Terrible, in fact almost a trap.

Is the Pope Catholic?! The signs & lines are VITAL to their case, and you have damning evidence.

DEFENCE

Thanks, I've sent a Subject Access Request to VCS.



At the court hearing, are you allowed to sutmit images as evidence?

KeithP

qazitory wrote: »

At the court hearing, are you allowed to sutmit images as evidence?

Only stuff that has been submitted earlier - at Witness Statement and evidence stage.