VCS Letter Before Claim, Flora St.

sensai

May 2018. Driver entered Flora St (Sheffield) retail park, all spaces full, so stopped in a large, open unmarked space on premises (not in any “roadway” or causing obstruction) in order to read signs (which are 7-8ft high on poles). Driver walked through to far end of car park to check any other signs/notices/empty spaces, then driver returned to car and found MyparkingCharge ticket on windscreen, then left the site.

1. 6 days later I (registered keeper) received NTK (parked in a restricted/prohibited area). Their evidence shows 6 photos of the car over a time span of 3min 8 secs.

2. Several demands followed (I didn’t appeal, IPC) then got LBC from VCS in-house litigation dept. dated 6 Sept.

3. I acknowledged (by email) within 14 days along with a request for further essential information.

4. Received VCS’s response yesterday (2 Sept).

Defence point (none mentioned as yet) will be: “No Contract Entered Into” as 3 minutes is a reasonable grace period to leave car, study signs/enquire/leave site. No grace period posted on signs.

Can you please suggest any further points to add to the formal response which has to be sent this week?

So far the systems not allowing me to upload any images of the documents/signs using the 'insert image' icon.

Coupon-mad

Yes you can post links to Dropbox images if you change the http to hxxp and add a few breaks as well, use your imagination to slightly change the URL.

Can you please suggest any further points to add to the formal response which has to be sent this week?

No keeper liability as there was no parking event, no PCN* and no POFA compliant NTK.



*the notice was in an envelope saying THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE, wasn't it. Have a look at the example defences in the NEWBIES thread, I wrote one the other week that deals with VCS and a 'CN' that wasn't one. You are not at defence stage yet, but you soon will be so you will need to look at that defence, I reckon.

System

so stopped in a large, open unmarked space on premises (not in any “roadway” or causing obstruction) in order to read signs (which are 7-8ft high on poles). Driver walked through to far end of car park to check any other signs/notices/empty spaces, then driver returned to car and found MyparkingCharge ticket on windscreen, then left the site.

That is your defence to any claim. Flora Street is notorious for them pouncing on people who park in that spot and Google Street View will show a lot of them. The signs will say park in a bay and that is what VCS would hang their claim on. Just hammer away at the signs and lines being unclear. They have lost a few cases for that site but they think it is still worth their while to entrap people.

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.

sensai

ok, thank you all, I'll search the advice and prepare a defence in case they decide to take it further.

sensai

Update- received Claim Form from VCS, the Particulars are short lack information. I have drafted a Defence and has to be in before 2 January. Please advise;



1. I can obviously post up the Draft Defence, and any other docs you might wish to see.


2. Despite viewing the WS examples on here, I am unsure about the general approach in drafting a WS when not admitting to being the driver on that occasion.


3. Can exhibits be referenced (if necessary) in the Defence as well as a WS?

Le_Kirk

sensai wrote: »

Update- received Claim Form from VCS, the Particulars are short lack information. I have drafted a Defence and has to be in before 2 January.

You are going to struggle to do that - is it a typo?

Coupon-mad

1. I can obviously post up the Draft Defence, and any other docs you might wish to see.

Please do, and we will help. Make sure you are using a defence as shown int he NEWBIES thread, and add a point about the facts of the car park/event, if you know anything as keeper.

There is a pre-written defence about a 'MyparkingCharge' ticket on windscreen, making the point that VCS in their POC, say they issued a PCN. But it was never a PCN at all...

2. Despite viewing the WS examples on here, I am unsure about the general approach in drafting a WS when not admitting to being the driver on that occasion.

You are not doing a WS for a couple of months yet, but of ycourse you would just tell the story as you know it about what the driver did, or alternatively what you do know from local knowledge (e.g. photos of the terrible signage, copies of articles exposing a well known scam site there, etc).

3. Can exhibits be referenced (if necessary) in the Defence as well as a WS?

Yes, you could say that 'the Defendant has evidence that...'

The_Deep

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers, (very often former clampers), be put out of business.

Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

sensai

Oops, yes its 2 Feb, Claim Form date issued 31st Dec.


DRAFT DEFENCE


In the County Court at Sheffield
Claim no******
Between
Vehicle Control Services
And
Xxxxxxxx (Defendant)


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

2 The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

3 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.

4 I make no admission as to who was the driver, and no contravention took place as there was no parking “event”.

5 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it is the “Principal” as claimed and has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices' and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8 VCS assert that they issued a Charge Notice “CN” when they actually did not.
It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

9 It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge.

10 This “CN” therefore does not meet the strict requirements of PoFA Para. 7(1).

11 The date of the alleged contravention (in a non-APNR car park) was 4/5/18 and the Notice to Keeper was issued on 10/5/18, eleven days afterwards. PoFA Para. 8(5) states that a Notice to Keeper must be served not earlier than 28 days after the issue of a (valid) Notice to Driver.

12 The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper is incorrect as it demands payment “28 days after the notice is issued”, ie, on or before 7/6/18. This is incorrect because it should be “28 days after the Notice is given”, so it would be served on or before 11/6/18, 4 days later.
Therefore, the NtK does not comply with PoFA para 8(f):

13 PoFA2012 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.

14 The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area. The Claimant's signs state that these are identified by hatched yellow markings. The registered keeper’s car was stationary in a rectangular unmarked area, and not in any roadway, walkway, entrance or exit. This area is not marked, unlike other areas which are marked clearly with the cross hatch , so the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the area is restricted.

15 The International Parking Community (IPC), of which the Claimant is a member, state in their Code of Practice on Grace Periods;

“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. 15.1

16 Grace Periods are not stated on any of the park’s signs.

17 The Supreme Court Judges in the Parking Eye v Beavis case held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

18 The images hosted on the Claimant’s “myparkingcharge” website cover a time span of 3 min 8 seconds in which the car is stationary. Therefore, IPC code 15.1 is not breached. The British Parking Association allows a “reasonable time” and council- run car parks allow 10 minutes.


19 Signs ;

a) They give no information to drivers waiting for spaces when the car park is full, in which case there can be no contract with a driver unable to find a space.

b) The signage and lettering on and around the site is small, unclear and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice, or the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice whose requirements they also did not follow. The lettering is too small and high up to read when seated in a car requiring the driver to leave the car in order to read the signs.

c) The signs fail the test of large lettering as established in the Parking Eye v Beavis case.

d) They are poorly illuminated at night.

20 Clause 14.1 of the IPC code of which VCS is a member states:

“You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code”

21 3JD08399 ParkingEye v Ms X. (Altrincham 17/03/2014). Fistral Beach

“waiting for a space to become free is not parking”.

22 Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.


Statement of Truth:

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


Date