county Court Claim Form - VCS Limited parking fine

PrettyKittyKat

Thanks, I'll have a look at that when I am home from work tonight. Sorry I hadn't recalled that was there as we obviously never got the initial 'this is not a parking charge' warning card so wouldn't have thought that was relevant to us. Thanks for letting me know where it is.

What do you think about the address not being accurate on the letter sent to us. I have screenprinted google maps highlighting the site area and highlighting the area that is the postcode given to us on the PCN/NTK to show that they are different(not sure if that's the correct thing to do but I thought it highlighted it best).

I have also noticed that the contract states they have to have 8 signs and google maps shows only 7, with the first one on a lamppost as you enter the car park being turned away from the road (so not clearly visible as you enter) from one google maps view prior to the contravention date and then not even on the lamppost on a different view on google maps dated after the contravention. I have screen printed all of this also and highlighted the signs/where the missing sign is according to their site map, to refer to in my WS.

My husband is speaking to the ops manager at the company who are landlords today with the info of what to write in their letter confirming he had permission to attend, so hopefully they will have time to do this today so I can include it. I have also given them the litigation email for VCS to email saying the same and that they want it cancelled.

PrettyKittyKat

My witness statement is looking extremely long at the moment, and I am worried I may be running around in circles abit and the court will jsut give up reading it all!

I still need to add in the info re: this is not a parking charge, not meeting POFA 2012 requirements so being unable to pursue the Keeper.

Is there anyone that may have some spare time to read the WS and give me any feedback? I would prefer to email it if you wouldn't mind PMing me your email address due to the length of the document ( 3 A4 pages plus the evidence at the moment). I totally understand if there is no-one available to - this is a BIG ask I appreciate.

My husband is going to ensure he is back from work on Thursday by the time the court closes so he can hand deliver it which means I can finish it off tomorrow evening.

Coupon-mad

Don't ask for help off forum, it is NOT a good idea for you.

Chances are, a parking appeals firm (DO NOT GO THERE!) would contact you with their greedy or 'we'll do this one free to try to look like we are OK' agenda.
NONONO, TrustPilot tells you why these companies are NEVER an option.

You would be out of the frying pan into a horrible fire. DO NOT reply if you get a pm.

Post your WS draft proudly, for all to comment openly and honestly on, right here.

PrettyKittyKat

Very sound advice thanks Coupon-Mad (as always!). I will post some of it that I think doesn't sound that great and see what you think

PrettyKittyKat

11. Whilst researching for the court case I discovered that I was able to submit a subject access request (SAR) to VCS to acquire the information I had requested. This was submitted on 24/10/2018 and responded to by VCS on 23/11/2018.

12. The SAR contained the pictures of the vehicle, which had been requested on two previous occasions by myself (EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D) as far back as January 2018, and yet refused to be provided by VCS until I submitted a SAR. The pictures (EXHIBIT F) show the vehicle but are of poor quality and in near darkness so offer no information by which to identify the address.

13. The SAR also contained the letter VCS advised was issued on 13/12/2017 (EXHIBIT G), which unfortunately we had not received. This letter is headed as both a PCN and NTK, however the subsequent letter on 11/1/2018 confirmed that this was a NTK. You will note that address is listed as ‘Grand Union Gardens Car Park, Lougborough LE11 1GF.’

14. No further information was provided in the SAR response that enabled the location of the alleged contravention to be identified, as the address was still only stated as ‘Grand Union Gardens Car Park, Lougborough LE11 1GF.’

15. In February 2019 I received a copy of the witness statement from VCS. Of which I would like to bring your attention to the following inconsistencies.

16. In the witness statement VCS state that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme from 11th May 2007, however the contract in their exhibit AA1 between the landowner and VCS is dated 5th May 2007.

17. The site information provided by VCS states that the car park is on land situated at ‘Grand Union Gardens, Nottingham Road, Loughborough’ and includes a sketch of the car park boundaries. ‘Nottingham Road’ has not been listed in the address on any of the correspondence from VCS prior to the witness statement nor the Claim Form. Upon becoming aware of this additional address I again searched on the post office website address finder (EXHIBIT H) which confirmed that addresses along Nottingham Road in Loughborough have a variety of post codes all of which begin LE11 1E, with the last letter of the post code varying. This post code does not correlate with the postcode provided by VCS in their PCN/NTK/letters (LE11 1GF) nor was the road name (Nottingham Road) provided on the Claim Form.

18. I have been able to locate the location of the car park using Google maps (EXHIBIT I). As the map shows the car park is not situated on Nottingham Road as the contract says but rather on Mill Lane. Furthermore the area that VCS recorded as being where the contravention took place (LE11 1GF) has been highlighted, which shows that this is not the same area that VCS have a contract to monitor the parking. It is therefore clear that there is a large inconsistency between the address provided on the contract between the landowner and VCS, the alleged location of the contravention on the letters sent to XXXXXXX XXXXXXX Limited and the address given on the Claim Form. As the address on the contract is incorrect I would deem that it is null and void and as such VCS do not have the authority to enforce parking restrictions on the car park on Mill Lane. If the contract is upheld as valid then the contravention address provided by VCS (LE11 1GF) is an area outside of the boundaries of the protected area and as such they do not have the authority to issue a parking charge for this area.

19. The contract between the landowner and VCS states that there should be 8 signs at the car park location. EXHIBIT J shows that in October 2014 there are only 7 of the signs highlighted on the site map in situ. This shows that VCS was in breach of their contract. The missing sign is the second sign that should be visible as you enter the car park, which is on a prominent position on the end of a building. Due to the location of the sign it would need to be fixed to the building and as such would not be easily removed, therefore it is reasonable to believe that this sign was never in situ and was not in situ when the XXXXXX XXXXXXXX Limited entered the car park.

20. Furthermore EXHIBIT J highlights how the first sign as you enter the car park is not clearly visible. There are two images, one from prior to the alleged contravention (April 2015) where the sign is turned away from the road so is not easily visible to a driver as they enter the car park, and once from after the alleged contravention (September 2018) where no sign is visible at all.

21. Due to the witness statement from VCS providing additional information regarding the location of the alleged contravention I have been able to determine that the car park is situated on Mill Lane in Loughborough and enclosed by XXXXX Court (LE11 XXX) and XXXXX Court (LE11 XXX), which are buildings containing flats many of which belong XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX. I can confirm that XXXXXX XXXXXX Limited was instructed by XXXXXXXXXXX Group, who own the landlord company XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, to attend these properties to perform gas safety checks on 7/12/2017. XXXXXX XXXXXX Limited has attended these properties on many occasions, and never received a parking charge before 7/12/2017 nor since. As the company was instructed to attend the property to perform a legal safety requirement (gas safety check) by the landlords of the property then the vehicle was an authorised and exempt works vehicle. EXHIBIT K contains a letter from XXXXXXX Jones, an operations manager in XXXXXX Group, which confirms that this is the case. Mr Jones confirms that he does not support any litigation brought against XXXXXX XXXXXXX Limited. Mr XXXXXX has also made direct contact via email with VCS on 12/3/2019 to confirm the same and advised that he does ‘not support any litigation against XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX Limited and are requesting that the claim is cancelled on the basis that the company was attending the site to perform gas safety checks, which are an annual legal safety requirement, at the request of the landlord.’

PrettyKittyKat

I have posted part of the WS above if anyone has the chance to read it and check it is ok?

I have removed company names and replaces a persons name with the generic Mr Jones. I have left the address of the car park in as this isn't sensitive information to myself, but please let me know if you think I should blank this out too.

I'm not sure how to post a picture so can't show you the Google maps exhibit I. Basically it shows the car park site highlighted on the right then a street highlighted on the left adjacent to it, which is the postcode that was listed on all the letters from VCS but not the claim form.

Le_Kirk

I'm not sure how to post a picture..........

Use a hosting site such as imgur, tinypic (other hosting sites are available) and then post the URL here. Since you have been a member for over 4 years and have a good posting history you should be allowed to post links without problem.

Coupon-mad

I really like that WS and the evidence you've amassed. Looks compelling to me!

PrettyKittyKat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I really like that WS and the evidence you've amassed. Looks compelling to me!

Thank you, that is praise indeed form yourself! Off to pop in some bits about POFA then I will post the whole final draft just to double check

PrettyKittyKat

I am a little confused by POFA... is anyone able to shed some light on the legal jargon please?

This section...
'6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b)has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.'

Is leading me to believe that their can either give a notice to driver (IE PCN) then a NTK
OR
Just send a NTK within 14 days as per paragraph 9.

I think based upon this the letter we received dated 13/12 which VCS says is a NTK in the second letter is therefore beign sent within 14 days after per the requirements of 6, 1, b) so they are meeting to requirements of POFA to pursue the keeper?

I had it in my head this first letter was a breach of POFA as it was sent early?