VCS Defence

beamerguy

snapdragon855 wrote: »

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

As long as you can prove it was purchased.

Seems to me that VCS now needs a time machine back in time

Maybe the new Dr Who could help them

Redx

live link

https://ibb.co/QP5mthH

it clearly states that the recipient has been named as driver, so part of your defence is incorrect for a start, the part about not stating if its the keeper or driver (see section 3) )

its a notice to a driver who has been divulged by the keeper, so its an invoice to the driver named by the keeper for £100

so apart from it being at odds with one of your defence points , what else are we looking for ? (there is no legislation on this)

ie:- its an invoice , to the alleged driver as nominated by the keeper , for a parking charge amount of £100

snapdragon855

Coin operated and ticket wasn't retained unfortunately. My only evidence would be the PDT records if provided by the SAR.

With regards to the SAR; excelparking/VCS have replied twice asking for the VRN before they will proceed with the request, despite it being included on the original request. I have reminded them of this and sent the VRN again to them. I guess it's just delaying tactics from them..?

snapdragon855

Redx wrote: »

live link

it clearly states that the recipient has been named as driver, so part of your defence is incorrect for a start, the part about not stating if its the keeper or driver (see section 3) )

its a notice to a driver who has been divulged by the keeper, so its an invoice to the driver named by the keeper for £100

so apart from it being at odds with one of your defence points , what else are we looking for ? (there is no legislation on this)

ie:- its an invoice , to the alleged driver as nominated by the keeper , for a parking charge amount of £100

The registered keeper (lease company) have nominated me as the driver, but I will rewrite the defence to state there are 2 insured drivers on this vehicle, and the driver is unidentified so the claim is invalid if they are ignoring POFA (I don't know if they will/won't ignore POFA - still trying to get my head around it!).
Is the NTD compliant from a POFA point of view? Are there any details in there which would make it invalid..?

Redx

the lease company cannot , repeat CANNOT nominate you as driver because they have no idea who was driving

they can nominate you as LESSEE (hirer or keeper of the vehicle)

as I said earlier, there are thousands of people who could have been the driver, not just the 2 people on the lease and/or insurance policy

now that you have mentioned it being a leased vehicle (as you have done earlier which I missed) , take the advice by CM on it being leased, you need to read POFA2012 and the part about lease vehicles , where the NTH (Notice To Hirer) should be accompanied with the lease contract itself, which I bet was NOT RECEIVED by the hirer/lessee

this is in itself a breach by VCS of POFA , so read any and all posts by EDNA BASHER on this topic, some of which are at the bottom of the NEWBIES thread post #1

bear in mind that they have sent an NTD , not an NTH, plus no lease docs either

it states that the keeper has identified the recipient as the driver, whereas all they can say is it identifies the hirer or lessee, not the driver , so should have been an NTH accompanied with a copy of the signed lease document

if the lessee had been so minded , they could have identified the driver , to absolve themselves under POFA2012, but were never warned about that opportunity

VCS have never complied with POFA on wordings , timescales and the lessee or hirer aspects, even if they do so now (I dont know if they still fail it or not)

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL

snapdragon855

Thanks Redx - that stuff looks good, although will they claim to have sent the NTH / lease contract even though they did not?

Some parking sign images below - surely they are not compliant and it looks like it says Excel Parking on them rather than VCS (these are older images - another thread indicates these signs have been replaced with VCS ones). Don't know what they will use in their evidence in court.

https /ibb.co/2ccdx3Y
https: //ibb.co/rsP9RTf

Redx

a SAR would find out if any NTH has been sent, plus their NTD states that the RK or KEEPER has named the driver, but the RK doesnt know who was driving so cannot state that as a fact (its a lie) and you said the KEEPER (the hirer or lessee) in this case) has never named the driver , so their NTD is a lie and should never have been sent

they cannot have it both ways, plus no lease doc either !! lose , lose

ie:- if the lease doc has the lessee name on it , it should have been disclosed in the SAR reply to the lessee- gettit ?

if VCS have brought the claim and EXCEL parking signs were up (a common mistake that they make as sister companies) , then VCS have no standing on an EXCEL operated car park , capiche ?

make them prove correct signage

live links to excel signage below

https://ibb.co/2ccdx3Y


https://ibb.co/rsP9RTf

the more the merrier

Coupon-mad

although will they claim to have sent the NTH / lease contract even though they did not?

No, they can't, because they won't have a copy of it. The lease firm probably sent them very little.

You need to say at the start of your defence that you were named as the lessee/hirer by xxxx lease firm, however this does not mean a parking firm can assume the lessee/hirer was driving.

Then another point citing the Claimant's failure to comply with para 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of the POFA and they have failed to transfer liability to the lessee/hirer (the Defendant) who cannot therefore be held liable under that Act.

snapdragon855

Thank you everyone for your input so far. I have updated the first post and I think I have included the main points in my Defence. Would appreciate it if someone could proof read the draft to ensure all the legal terms are being used correctly :A

Any other suggestions or points to include are welcome

Coupon-mad

2.4 is a POPLA appeal point, not a defence! Remove it and any mention of POPLA.

If they fail to establish this, then it stands that a valid Parking Charge Notice has not been served and the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action.

I would change that to 'Notice to Hirer' (with accompanying documents required by law to transfer liability from the lease/hire firm) has not been...''

Pretty sure this is not right as per the IPC CoP which has NEVER allowed 20 minutes:

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 The contravention reason is given as a stay of 79 minutes on the land operated by the Claimant. 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.
A parking ticket was purchased for 1 hour, and provided a 10-minute grace period before and after parking is permitted as per the IPC and British Parking Association codes of practice, the total time permitted on the site is 80 minutes. Therefore, according to the Claimants ANPR evidence; no contravention has occurred.

It really isn't 80 minutes, so don't say this as it's easy for VCS to shoot down.

But you could argue that the car was only actually parked for the allowed hour, and that 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 to find a space, park, read a sign, go and queue at a machine to pay, then at the end, the ten minute grace period applies to allow a motorist to leave without incurring a PCN, and thus there was no contravention.