Vehicle Control Services - myparkingcharge.co.uk

Coupon-mad

You are quoting the wrong para of the POFA if there was a 'CN' or any description on the car windscreen on the day:

Section 9(5) states this period is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

para 8 applies.

There is already a VCS 'not a CN' example defence in the NEWBIES thread which talks about the windscreen ticket not being one at all, such that the POC are knowingly untrue.

dan0292

Hi all,

I will write to my MP once I have finished my defense. Does this give any benefit to the case? I understand it all helps towards properly regulating this scam.

Issue date on the claim is 11/02/19, which I believe gives me til the end of the week - I will not be leaving it to the last day.

@Coupon-mad - What is the difference between the 2 paragraphs? I was under the impression ANPR tickets must arrive within 14 days hence why i assumed para 9 applied. Also thanks for pointing the example defense out I will look for that specific example now.
EDIT POST - just realised you said IF there was a windscreen ticket on the day - there wasn't, nothing was received until 88 days after it happened through the post, this was an ANPR car park.

KeithP

dan0292 wrote: »

Issue date on the claim is 11/02/19, which I believe gives me til the end of the week - I will not be leaving it to the last day.

You haven't said, but did you do the Acknowledgement of Service before 4th March?

I'll assume you did the AoS before that date. Please confirm.


With a Claim Issue Date of 11th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 18th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just one week away. Loads of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the very last minute.


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

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

dan0292

KeithP

To confirm I did complete the AoS in a timely manner.

I have already produced a 'draft' version of my defense, this is in post #8.

Thanks for the step-by-step instructions - very helpful.

Coupon-mad

Show us your latest draft though, please. It needs to talk about the Notice to Keeper arriving too late to establish keeper liability, etc.

The below phrase in bold, doesn't read as good English:

4. On the original PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) the time stamp on the ‘TIME OF EXIT’ image doesn’t show a clear time stamp, therefore, does not confirm or deny with the stated time of exit of *******.

dan0292

Not many changes to the previous draft but please see below.
Changed the English you have just mentioned and also added the bit about establishing keeper liability into point 8.


IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No*******

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
Mr ********** ********* (Defendant)

____________

DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £160, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

3. On the material date the facts are that the vehicle ******* entered ********* at *******, the vehicle left the car park the same day – the exact time cannot be confirmed as per section 4 below.

4. On the original PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) the time stamp on the ‘TIME OF EXIT’ image does not show a clear time stamp, therefore, does not confirm or deny the stated time of exit of ********.

5. The ‘International Parking Community’ (of which Vehicles Services Limited are a member) states in their code of practise in 15.2 that ‘Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired’. Taking this into account means that the Defendant’s vehicle was only 16 minutes over the period rather than the 26 minutes, this doesn’t justify losses to the Claimant of the originally requested £100.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. There is also no clear signage that states anybody parking in the car park, that they are entering into any contract. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage can create a legally binding contract.

7. 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 when parking at ********** on **********. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 9(4) states that the NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) must be delivered to the current address for service for the keeper within the relevant period. Section 9(5) states this period is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. With the date of ***** the NTK should have been received by the Defendant by ******* (this is considering the NTK is delivered on the second working day after being posted – stated in Section 9(6)). The NTK was issued (as stated on the NTK) on *********, this is 88 days after the contravention date, therefore the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


……………………………………………
Name


……………………………………………
Signature


……………………………………………
Date

Le_Kirk

You need a Statement of Truth at the bottom.

dan0292

Thanks. Edited to include statement of truth.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No*******

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
Mr ********** ********* (Defendant)

____________

DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £160, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date.

3. On the material date the facts are that the vehicle ******* entered ********* at *******, the vehicle left the car park the same day – the exact time cannot be confirmed as per section 4 below.

4. On the original PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) the time stamp on the ‘TIME OF EXIT’ image does not show a clear time stamp, therefore, does not confirm or deny the stated time of exit of ********.

5. The ‘International Parking Community’ (of which Vehicles Services Limited are a member) states in their code of practise in 15.2 that ‘Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired’. Taking this into account means that the Defendant’s vehicle was only 16 minutes over the period rather than the 26 minutes, this doesn’t justify losses to the Claimant of the originally requested £100.

6. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. There is also no clear signage that states anybody parking in the car park, that they are entering into any contract. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage can create a legally binding contract.

7. 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 when parking at ********** on **********. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

8. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 9(4) states that the NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) must be delivered to the current address for service for the keeper within the relevant period. Section 9(5) states this period is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. With the date of ***** the NTK should have been received by the Defendant by ******* (this is considering the NTK is delivered on the second working day after being posted – stated in Section 9(6)). The NTK was issued (as stated on the NTK) on *********, this is 88 days after the contravention date, therefore the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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.

10. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I believe that the facts contained in this defence are true.


……………………………………………
Name


……………………………………………
Signature


……………………………………………
Date

Coupon-mad

You need to get details like the company name right:

5. The ‘International Parking Community’ (of which Vehicles Services Limited

Here I would add these words:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. It is denied that the registered keeper can be held liable for this charge, given the lack of adequate notice of the parking charge itself and given the Claimant's own failure to comply with the only applicable law that can allow them to transfer liability to a registered keeper.

And add the usual defence point seen in most examples, about landowner authority.

dan0292

Thanks for your points, I have now made these changes.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. ********

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
******* ********* (Defendant)

____________

DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief claimed in the sum of £160, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. It is denied that the registered keeper can be held liable for this charge, given the lack of adequate notice of the parking charge itself and given the Claimant's own failure to comply with the only applicable law that can allow them to transfer liability to a registered keeper.

3. On the material date the facts are that the vehicle ******* entered ******** at *******, the vehicle left the car park the same day – the exact time cannot be confirmed as per section 4 below.

4. On the original PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) the time stamp on the ‘TIME OF EXIT’ image does not show a clear time stamp, therefore, does not confirm or deny the stated time of exit of *******.

5. The ‘International Parking Community’ (of which Vehicle Control Services Limited are a member) states in their code of practise in 15.2 that ‘Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired’. Taking this into account means that the Defendant’s vehicle was only 16 minutes over the period rather than the 26 minutes, this doesn’t justify losses to the Claimant of the originally requested £100.

6. Further and in the alternative, the Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices under defined parameters (including when caused by failure of their own data processing/excessive storage) and to form/offer contracts in their own name, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. There is also no clear signage that states anybody parking in the car park, that they are entering into any contract. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage can create a legally binding contract.

8. 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 when parking at ******** on *******. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £100 'Parking Charge Notice (PCN)'.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 9(4) states that the NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK) must be delivered to the current address for service for the keeper within the relevant period. Section 9(5) states this period is 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. With the date of ******* the NTK should have been received by the Defendant by ******** (this is considering the NTK is delivered on the second working day after being posted – stated in Section 9(6)). The NTK was issued (as stated on the NTK) on ********, this is 88 days after the contravention date, therefore the Claimant cannot establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at 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.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


I believe that the facts contained in this defence are true.

……………………………………………
Name


……………………………………………
Signature


……………………………………………
Date