county Court Claim Form - VCS Limited parking fine

Umkomaas

Windscreen ticket (para 8 of PoFA) is a Notice to Driver. If no response from the driver within 28 days, the PPC can pursue the Registered Keeper (after acquiring their data from the DVLA) via a Notice to Keeper, inviting them to identify the driver, or face keeper liability under PoFA.

ANPR capture (para 9 of PoFA) makes it not possible to issue a windscreen ticket, so, within 14 days the PPC issues a Notice to Keeper (after acquiring their data from the DVLA) inviting them to identify the driver, or face keeper liability under PoFA.

Hope that clears it for you?

PrettyKittyKat

Hmm I have written something which I think may now be completely wrong! I will post it and see what you think...

PrettyKittyKat

22. In paragraph 22 of the VCS witness statement they claim that a card is affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle. In their exhibit AA2 a sample warning card is included which clearly states ‘THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.’ XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Limited denies that such a card was left on the vehicle. The photographs provided by VCS (EXHIBIT F) do not clearly show this card affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle. The photographs show the windscreen close up with no card affixed, and then a poor quality dark photograph from a distance infront of the vehicle shows something tucked under the windscreen wiper however there is no distinguishing features which identifies this as the ‘warning card.’ Furthermore, the item visible is tucked under the windscreen wiper rather than securely affixed to the vehicle; therefore this could easily have been removed after the photograph and before the driver returned to the vehicle. As this card was never received Broom Plumbing Limited was never given the information to access the online portal to view the alleged breach and photographic evidence therefore the supposed placement of this card cannot be used as justification as to why VCS ignored my two requests for this information.

23. Paragraph 24 of the VCS witness statement claims that after 5 days VCS contacts the DVLA for the registered keeper details and then issues a PCN within 14 days. As I have already confirmed (Using EXHIBIT G and EXHIBIT A) the first letter issued was infact a Notice to Keeper (NTK) not a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This is therefore in breach of the process that VCS claim to follow and I dispute that this paragraph in the witness statement is accurate.

24. As explained in my defence it is admitted that XXXXXXXXXXXX Limited is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Limited is a limited company and as such cannot have been the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has not been evidenced on any occasion. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

25. VCS acknowledge the above in their response to the defence letter (point 3 on page 14) and state that they are able to pursue the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention by relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012. A copy of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 has been provided in EXHIBIT L.
26. As part of the SAR response VCS provided a document entitled ‘Litigation Case Data’ (EXHIBIT M) which appears to be a screen print of their system. This confirms that it is unknown whether the PCN’s are POFA compliant. I am therefore surprised to see that VCS are relying so heavily on POFA in their witness statement when their own system acknowledges that they do not know whether they comply with the requirements to enable them to pursue the registered keeper.

27. POFA 2012 confirms that the parking company may pursue unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle if various conditions are met, including two variations of how the driver/keeper is notified. The first set of conditions (paragraph 9 of POFA 2012) state that a NTK must be issued within 14 days and must contain various pieces of information. The letter dated 13/12/2017 from VCS (EXHIBIT G) is ambiguous as to whether it is a NTK or PCN as it is headed as both. Presuming this is a NTK as it is referred to in a later letter then no PCN has been issued and VCS would need to comply under paragraph 9 of POFA 2012. This letter does not comply with the conditions as it contains an incorrect address for the land in which the vehicle was parked (as proven earlier in my witness statement) and it does not specify a period of time that the vehicle was parked (just a point in time of 17:44). If this letter is to be claimed as a NTK by VCS then it does not comply with the requirements detailed in POFA 2012 and as such they are unable to pursue the registered keeper for any outstanding parking charges. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim on the Claim Form state that a Charge Notice (CN) was issued, which VCS confirm is not the case as the warning card they claim was affixed to the fixed was clearly labelled as not a charge notice, therefore the Particular of Claim are false.

28. If the letter dated 13/12/2017 is to be claimed as being a PCN (in contrary to the subsequent letter from VCS but inline with the Particulars of Claim) then it must comply with paragraph 7 of POFA 2012, with the subsequent NTK complying with paragraph 8.
Paragraph 7 point 4 clearly states that

‘(4)The notice must be given—
(a)before the vehicle is removed from the relevant land after the end of the period of parking to which the notice relates, and
(b)while the vehicle is stationary,
by affixing it to the vehicle or by handing it to a person appearing to be in charge of the vehicle.’

This letter does not comply with this point as it was not affixed to the vehicle or handed to the person in charge of the vehicle before it left the car park. Infact this was posted to the registered keeper some 6 days after the alleged contravention. Therefore it does not comply with the requirements detailed in POFA 2012 and as such they are unable to pursue the registered keeper for any outstanding parking charges.

29. VCS have chosen to pursue XXXXXXXXX Limited for the outstanding parking charges as the registered keeper of the vehicle. However XXXXXXXXXXXXX Limited has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of POFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

PrettyKittyKat

Any views on the above are much appreciated. Need to get this all printed off tonight ready to hand into court tomorrow after work.

PrettyKittyKat

Actually I have just realised that the second letter dated 11/1/2018 is entitled as a PCN FINAL REMINDER... which is strange.... not sure how to reference that?

Coupon-mad

I think that reads fine, except I didn't see you refer to the lack of - or misstated 28 day period - about keeper liability; the warning in 8(2)f or 9(2)f which is prescribed under the statute as mandatory.

PrettyKittyKat

Thank you for your help and guidance the last couple of days.

The witness statement was dropped off at the court today and posted to VCS. I am going to email it to them also.

Am I right in thinking that the skeleton argument and costs are the next things to prepare?

Umkomaas

Am I right in thinking that the skeleton argument and costs are the next things to prepare?

Yes. Skeleton Argument is optional - it's essentially a checklist to help make sure, if given the time by the Judge, that you cover the points you wish to. Sending the Judge (and claimant's solicitors) a copy might give you more of a chance to get your points considered.

Send the SA and cost schedule (examples in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2) a few days before the hearing.

PrettyKittyKat

What a busy two weeks! We have moved home... I know I need to update VCS and the court. Am I able to do this via email? Or do I need to write to them.

The court case is on Thursday so only a short timescale hence why I'm thinking that email would be best.

PrettyKittyKat

Also, I would like to speak rather than my husband as I have dealt with it all. Am I able to do this? I say something mentioned about someone's partner speaking on their behalf but I forgot what it's called and forgot to bookmark that thread!