VCS and NOT a PCN

AllCingEye

Hi everyone

My car received a windscreen 'not a PCN' from VCS (Vehicle Control Services Ltd) back in October 2018. A ticket had been purchased from the nearest PDT machine (there are two on the land) and was displayed on the dashboard of the car.

Despite this, letters from VCS in October, December, January and February have all contended that the car was parked in a "restricted/prohibited area" despite no signage on site to the contrary. In fact, the SAR sent in January reveals in their notes that "Customer parking whilst on Premises Driver not on site Bounce Closed No Permit Displayed" yet I have the ticket, it can be seen on the photos they took and they didn't provide the PDT machine receipts as requested in the SAR!

At no previous point was any correspondence entered into with VCS as I did not recognise their 'claim' as valid yet on receipt of the LBCCC (having researched some of the threads on here) I was compelled to start constructing a defence -including the SAR.

Last week I received the claim form from Northampton and have gone through the online AOS process to give me until 01/04/19 to form and submit a defence. I wondered if the more experienced on here might consider looking through it for me and offering any suggestions please? Happy to give any further details if needed.

Here goes:

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 registered
keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX
Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
3. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be
held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than both claims). This
depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking
charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant
has failed on all counts.
4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or 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.!
5. 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.
6. 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.!
7. 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.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.
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 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."

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

You don't seem to have used the VCS 'not a CN' defence example!

AllCingEye

Thanks for the heads-up; I'll look back into that and work it into the defence

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

AllCingEye

Issue date was 28th Feb and yes, from Northampton

The_Deep

Get your MP on board.

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

KeithP

Issue date was 28th Feb and yes, from Northampton

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but 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.

ShakeItOff

You may want to ask for your username to be changed if it is in fact very close to your actual name. The PPCs lurk on the boards, so you wouldn't want to out yourself.

How long does VCS have left to process your SAR?

AllCingEye

Thanks for the suggestion re: username - I'll get it changed in two minutes.

The SAR was returned within the statutory 30 day period allowed - they just didn't provide everythin requested nor did their cover letter specify that they didn't hold the information either. Rather tellingly, they didn't provide the PDT machine receipts from the day in question whereas I still hold the actual ticket with my registration and sufficient payment to cover a 24hr period.

Redx

reply to the SAR and insist on the data that is missing, such as the redacted PDT info

KeithP

anon wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestion re: username - I'll get it changed in two minutes.

To help with that, you might like to read this short extract from The MSE Forum Guide - Frequently Asked Questions & Rules:

Q. How can I change my username?

A. In most circumstances, this is not permitted.

The only reason we will change your username is if it puts your privacy at risk. This usually means you've inadvertently registered using your name, email address or something that gives away your identity within your username.

If you fall into this category, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com and request that it is changed, giving three alternative usernames in order of preference.