We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
VCS Defence
snapdragon855
Posts: 32 Forumite
Good evening all.
CCBC Claim Form - Issue Date 11/02/2019
Acknowledgement of Service has been submitted as per guidelines on this forum.
SAR made via email to VCS Data officer and a "Restriction of data processing" request has been made via email.
Summary: In the Parking Charge Notice / Notice To Driver the contravention reason states: 101) parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The maximum period allowed at this site is (BLANK) minutes
Time of Entry/Exit (ANPR) are given and a Duration of Stay of 79 minutes.
Payment was definitely made for 1 hour, ticket paid and displayed, however Defendant was delayed in a queue when entering and leaving the carpark from what is recollected.
POC: The Claimant's claim is for the sum of XXX being monies from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX.
The CN relates to a (Make model and VRN). The terms of the CN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of Judgement or earlier payment.
Now need some expert help with the defence statement please! :think:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the lessee/hirer, from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant was parked on land allocated to Vehicle Control Services at XXXX Car Park, and had a valid permit to be parked on that land.
2.1. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was 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.
2.2. The Defendant is named as the lessee/hirer by xxxx lease firm, however this does not mean the Claimant can assume the lessee/hirer was the driver at the time of the incident. The Claimant has incorrectly assumed this and sent a Notice To Driver to the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant is the driver. If they fail to establish this, then it stands that a valid Notice To Hirer (with accompanying documents required by law to transfer liability from the lease/hire firm) has not been served and the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action.
2.3. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VCS has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the lessee (the Defendant) in law. Given that the car is leased with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the lessee was necessarily the driver on a single occasion at an unremarkable site. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a Cause of Action and liability against the Defendant.
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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. It does not indicate time spent looking for a parking space, or the time spent in a queue to leave the carpark. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked.
4.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
4.2. In any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking, not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued/dismissed are:
Discontinued
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C
VCS v Mr H C2DP0H7C
VCS v Mr W C1DP3H5V
Dismissed
VCS v Ms A C6DP7P37
4.3. The International Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code Of Practice v6 April 2017 (of which the claimant is a member) states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs (this is more specifically given as 10 minutes according to British Parking Association code of practice) so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
The contravention reason is given as a stay of 79 minutes on the land operated by the Claimant. The Defendant is led to believe a Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) was purchased for period of 1 hour, the vehicle was only actually parked for the permitted 1 hour, and the driver relied upon the time on the PDT from the machine. The minutes before and after paid for time are accounted for by the time taken by the driver to find a space, park, read a sign, go and queue at a machine to pay, then at the end, the 10 minute grace period applies to allow a motorist to leave without incurring a PCN, and thus there was no contravention.
4.4. The Claimant has failed to provide the vital evidence needed under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, including withholding pictures of the signage terms that form the purported contract, and withholding the machine records from that day, despite being sent a Subject Access Request and the latter being personal data that must be disclosed.
5. 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, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
6. The POFA, 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.
7. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, 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 the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
CCBC Claim Form - Issue Date 11/02/2019
Acknowledgement of Service has been submitted as per guidelines on this forum.
SAR made via email to VCS Data officer and a "Restriction of data processing" request has been made via email.
Summary: In the Parking Charge Notice / Notice To Driver the contravention reason states: 101) parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The maximum period allowed at this site is (BLANK) minutes
Time of Entry/Exit (ANPR) are given and a Duration of Stay of 79 minutes.
Payment was definitely made for 1 hour, ticket paid and displayed, however Defendant was delayed in a queue when entering and leaving the carpark from what is recollected.
POC: The Claimant's claim is for the sum of XXX being monies from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX.
The CN relates to a (Make model and VRN). The terms of the CN allowed the Defendant 28 days from the Issue Date to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of Judgement or earlier payment.
Now need some expert help with the defence statement please! :think:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the lessee/hirer, from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant was parked on land allocated to Vehicle Control Services at XXXX Car Park, and had a valid permit to be parked on that land.
2.1. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was 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.
2.2. The Defendant is named as the lessee/hirer by xxxx lease firm, however this does not mean the Claimant can assume the lessee/hirer was the driver at the time of the incident. The Claimant has incorrectly assumed this and sent a Notice To Driver to the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the Defendant is the driver. If they fail to establish this, then it stands that a valid Notice To Hirer (with accompanying documents required by law to transfer liability from the lease/hire firm) has not been served and the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action.
2.3. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VCS has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the lessee (the Defendant) in law. Given that the car is leased with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the lessee was necessarily the driver on a single occasion at an unremarkable site. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a Cause of Action and liability against the Defendant.
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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom. It does not indicate time spent looking for a parking space, or the time spent in a queue to leave the carpark. The ANPR evidence was therefore not relevant as it showed the time in the car park, not the time parked.
4.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
4.2. In any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking, not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued/dismissed are:
Discontinued
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C
VCS v Mr H C2DP0H7C
VCS v Mr W C1DP3H5V
Dismissed
VCS v Ms A C6DP7P37
4.3. The International Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code Of Practice v6 April 2017 (of which the claimant is a member) states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs (this is more specifically given as 10 minutes according to British Parking Association code of practice) so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
The contravention reason is given as a stay of 79 minutes on the land operated by the Claimant. The Defendant is led to believe a Pay and Display Ticket (PDT) was purchased for period of 1 hour, the vehicle was only actually parked for the permitted 1 hour, and the driver relied upon the time on the PDT from the machine. The minutes before and after paid for time are accounted for by the time taken by the driver to find a space, park, read a sign, go and queue at a machine to pay, then at the end, the 10 minute grace period applies to allow a motorist to leave without incurring a PCN, and thus there was no contravention.
4.4. The Claimant has failed to provide the vital evidence needed under the pre-action protocol for debt claims, including withholding pictures of the signage terms that form the purported contract, and withholding the machine records from that day, despite being sent a Subject Access Request and the latter being personal data that must be disclosed.
5. 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, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
6. The POFA, 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.
7. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, 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 the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
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.snapdragon855 wrote: »CCBC Claim Form - Issue Date 11/02/2019
Acknowledgement of Service has been submitted.
That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Thanks KeithP.
Up until now I was following the old militant approach of not responding at all which I have found out is a little outdated! However even at this stage I look forward to taking these fraudsters all the way.0 -
If this was a 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHANGE NOTICE' case then grab some paragraphs from the VCS 'myparkingcharge' defence example (NEWBIES thread) exposing this non-compliant set of paperwork that VCS like to now call a 'CN', when we know it wasn't.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.
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 Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..
All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 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.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I believe the 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHANGE NOTICE' case applied to a charge notice affixed to the windscreen whereas in this case it was postal Parking Charge Notice / Notice to Driver with no ambiguity contained, so don't think that defence would apply. Thanks for the suggestion though
0 -
Yes, add a section saying the above, and that VCS failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the lessee (the Defendant) in law. Given that the car is leased with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the lessee was necessarily the driver on a single occasion at an unremarkable site. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant.Point 3: There are 2 drivers insured on the vehicle, the driver has not been identified. The vehicle is leased and the Lease company is the registered keeper. Is there a better way of using this information?
You could then cite Henry Greenslade's words (search the forum).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
If the pay and display ticket is no longer available, can I still claim it was purchased? Hopefully will be clarified once the SAR is completed.
For all points made with regards to signage, the carpark has since been demolished and there is no signage which can be used as evidence, apart from Google Streetview. How does this affect the defence?
It is believed there is a PDT and ANPR in operation – should data protection concerns due to excessive data processing be included in the defence?
Also guys, should I edit the first post with the suggestions made or make new posts for updated defence statements?
Thanks 0 -
Google Street View is fine for showing evidence of signs or lack of them.
Google the car park name and see if you can find other images of the signs.
Of course you can assert that a P&D ticket was purchased.0 -
as well as asserting that you believe that a valid ticket was purchased on the day, you could state that you believe that vehicles were prevented from leaving the car park because.......... and cite the GRACE PERIOD from the IPC CoP and also what the accepted version by the BPA CoP is or was too
by all means hone post #1 if you wish, or add the amended version below, your choice0 -
Thanks guys. Can anyone see any problems with the PCN / Notice To Driver?
h t t p s
/ibb.co/QP5mthH 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards