VCS and NOT a PCN

Coupon-mad

Don't call it PDT machine 'receipts'.

Reply to the SAR sender, and say that data is missing.

You want to see the PDT machine authenticated report from that hour, showing your payment and VRN, which you know exists as you have the ticket (as long as you didn't use another firm's payment machine on an adjacent car park - it has happened more than once).

If you are sure you bought your PDT from the right machine, for the exact right VRN, then how come a PCN was issued? Overstay before and after paid-for time?

AllCingEye

The car park has two identical pay machines which both require the full vehicle registration to be entered and is then printed on the ticket. There was nothing on either machine to indicate if they were operated by another company nor anything in the bay/on the ground where the vehicle was parked to state any restriction (their correspondence states this is what the LBCCC has been issued for)
The company have been advised they have not provided all the information I asked for (the machine receipts for both machines being part of the missing detail) and engaged the ICO about their data retention policy.
The ticket for the date, time and duration (a 24 hour stay was purchased and shown clearly on the ticket) does exist and will be used -as will others from other times my vehicle has been parked there without issue- in the defence.

Coupon-mad

OK, now let's see your newest draft defence, based on the VCS 'not a CN' example.

AllCingEye

Hi again all.

Sorry there's not been much further on this recently but in the local paper there's been another story about the same car park (obviously the same PPC) and circumstances which are similar -not exactly the same- as the one I'm going through right now

derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/do-not-use-derby-car-2661862

If there are any thoughts about this, I'm happy for advice. It's worth noting that the lady in the article went through the 'independent' appeal process and it's not clear whether she was ever a customer of the business the car park was attached to

AllCingEye

Here's my adapted draft defence based on other threads on this forum.
Please feel free to offer any suggestions which could be helpful
"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 xx x xxx of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date correctly within an unrestricted bay and not causing any obstruction. A ticket purchased on the day in question and correctly displayed in the vehicle shows the correct sum for a 24 hour parking period was obtained where the claimant admits themselves ‘Charges Apply 24 Hours Per Day’. The driver of the vehicle was both a customer of the business in question on the specified day and registered via email for further offers and contact from the business which are facts directly contrary to those alleged by the claimant. These facts are supported by documentary bank statements and email communications. These facts do not therefore breach the terms the claimant sets out on their signage.

2.1. The claimant repeats through a series of communications that the vehicle was ‘parked in a restricted/prohibited area’ yet provides neither by adequate signage, distinctive markings or later particulars of claim any information where a reasonable person can distinguish any such difference between available parking spaces.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/outlined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge for use of the bay in question, either by signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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.

4. 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.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage and/or markings set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a wall at the far end of the building away from the public entrance to the business it reports to act on behalf of and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'.

5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. This evidence was requested in Subject Access Request dated 18th January 2019 but was not returned by the claimant in their response dated 18th February 2019.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. 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. This is supported by the evidence supplied by the claimant themselves. Their later dated particulars of claim include a further £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Subject Access Request mentioned above specifically requests evidence of payments made to any debt collectors authorised to act on the claimant’s behalf in this matter where additional charges may be inferred from but no evidence was provided in the response dated 18th February 2019.

8. 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."

Thanks for reading

Coupon-mad

Jeez they - and the poxy IAS who should be ashamed of their 'decision' - are having a laugh to talk about different coloured signs!

A spokesman for Vehicle Control Service Limited said: "In the area of private land in question on Siddals Road, there are two car parks; one is for customers of the Bounce Revolution, which is patrolled by Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Limited, and the other is a 24 hour Pay & Display car park operated by Excel Parking Services (EPS) Limited.

"These car park are clearly distinct areas and signage for each car park is different in that VCS Limited is mainly coloured black and red and EPS Limited is blue and yellow.

What if a person is colour blind?

And even if they are not, are you meant to go ''oh wait a minute I must be in a separate car park, because the signs are blue here, not red''!

You could NOT make this level of scammery up.

AllCingEye

There really is/was nothing which a reasonable person could say showed any difference between one bay on one side of the car park or the other. Surely markng each bay in some way so as to remove any element of uncertainty would be good customer service? And again, lets not ignore the element that both businesses are operated by the same person from the same registered office.
Scam? No, surely not...

Le_Kirk

If that is your real VRM in post # 16 point 2, you might want to remove it!

AllCingEye

Done. And thanks for noticing!

jonesthebones

AllCingEye wrote: »

Hi again all.

Sorry there's not been much further on this recently but in the local paper there's been another story about the same car park (obviously the same PPC) and circumstances which are similar -not exactly the same- as the one I'm going through right now

derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/do-not-use-derby-car-2661862

If there are any thoughts about this, I'm happy for advice. It's worth noting that the lady in the article went through the 'independent' appeal process and it's not clear whether she was ever a customer of the business the car park was attached to

Hi,
There are two articles from the paper about this car park. One about this lady and the other about me. Like her, I was ticketed for parking in, what I thought, was just any other space in a PDT car park.
I can't link as i'm a new member but if you google 'derby telegraph student gets parking fine' , the other one will come up firs,t in case anyone wanted to give it a read.
I am actually in contact with the lady in the other article and we're keeping each other updated on our cases. She wasn't a customer of Bounce Revolution that day as it had already gone into administration on December 9th 2018, 3 days before I got my 'not a PCN'..... I wasn't a customer either.