Letter Before Claim - VCS PCN - Parking on 'Private Land'

The_Deep

We received a PCN from Vehicle Control Services late last year for parking on private land (Reason 81 - Parking in a restricted / prohibited area).

If parking where you did is prohibited then you cannot contract to do so. No contract therefore no breach of contract, and the landowner (not the PPC), could sue you for nominal damages for trespass. Read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/12/heath-parade-graham-park-way-scam-site.html

and complain to your M.P, they are well aware of the dishonesty of these PPC and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies. t

wharfviewfine

Hi, The Deep,

We've actually already contacted our MP and they've written to VCS to support us.

I've amended the below defence to include the lack of a contractual offer as point 5. Please let me know your thoughts.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXX

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXX (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 registered keeper, was parked on the material date on an 'access road' at XXXX.

3. 'The access road’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a residential street with no road markings indicating parking conditions.

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. The Claimant’s signage states most prominently “No Parking on the Access Road at Anytime”. It is submitted that if these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer which they then forbid, they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

6. Further and in the alternative, the area possesses inadequate signage relating to the parking conditions brought by the Claimant, with the Claimant's photographic evidence indicating a sign on an adjacent street, which was further inadequately illuminated to be considered visible at material time of parking.

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 utilise ambiguous indications such as 'the access road' whereby no contract can be construed under the contra proferentem principle. It is, therefore, further 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 interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. Nor can a contemporary landowner be reasonably publicly identified in order for the Defendant to directly appeal.

9. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

10. The Claimant has also ignored the Defendant's inability to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service with the PCN number and registration details supplied due to the information not being recognised by the body.

11. 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.

XXXX
Signature
X/XX/XXXX

Many thanks!

wharfviewfine

Hi folks, would anyone be able to comment on the above defence so that we can amend or file it?

Many thanks for your support!

Coupon-mad

wharfviewfine wrote: »

Hi folks,

I've completed the AOS and have compiled a draft defence based on other threads; any criticism would be much appreciated! Perhaps I could get rid of some points to make it more concise?

Up to you - concise is good, but sometimes I write longer defences!

Here's a recent VCS one mentioning Excel v Cutts to support the dodgy signs issue, and mentioning Simon Renshaw-Smith in scathing terms:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75681548#Comment_75681548

Are you going to defend as admitted driver (i.e. if you gave that away at appeal?).

Or as the registered keeper only, in which case you can add in the fact that VCS NTK does not comply with the POFA (the 28 days keeper liability warning is wrongly stated to start from the day after the notice, not as is set out in 9(2)f of the Schedule).

And, did you actually get a printed PCN or was it a red card 'not a PCN'? There is another VCS example in the NEWBIES thread that talks about that hybrid notice where we would argue that VCS got your data too early from the DVLA - not that the DVLA agree (we tried) but this hybrid trash can certainly be mentioned in a defence, as per the VCS 'not a CN' defence example.

And, that reply came from EXCEL, not VCS. That's not right.

You can complain to the ICO about that as they are sister firms but NOT the same company and there is no justification for EXCEL to be handling your data for your SAR. That's arguably illegal data sharing between the two systems with no differentiation between data storage and which email accounts are used.

wharfviewfine

Evening, folks,

So my court date has been set for later in October - please find my draft witness statement below for any criticism!

---

In the County Court at XXXXXX
Claim No. XXXXXX
Between
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXXXX, of XXXXXX, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On the XX/XX/2018, my previous vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which I was the registered keeper, was parked at XXXXXX referring as to the claimant’s own photographic evidence marked Exhibit A; not XXXXXX as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice received.

3.’The access road’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a residential street at XXXXXX with no road markings indicating parking conditions, referring to the Google street view imagery collated marked Exhibit B. The area possesses inadequate signage relating to the parking conditions brought by the Claimant, with the Claimant's photographic evidence indicating a sign on an adjacent street, of XXXXXX development, with terms displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, which was further inadequately illuminated in the Claimant's photographs to be considered visible at the material time of parking.

4. The Claimant’s signage brought as evidence states most prominently “No Parking on the Access Road at Anytime”. It is submitted that these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer which they then forbid and therefore they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant, referring to the case of PCMUK vs. Bull marked Exhibit C.

5. The signage itself also utilises ambiguous indications such as 'the access road' whereby no contract can be further construed under the contra proferentem principle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence in a direct appeal on XX/XX/19, following my inability to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service with the PCN number and registration details supplied on XX/XX/2019, referring to email correspondence marked Exhibit D, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

7. 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. 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 I, nor any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant has also failed to evidence that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. Nor can a contemporary landowner be reasonably publicly identified via the land registry in order for me to directly appeal, referring to the Land Registry entry marked Exhibit E, nor having contacted several local landlords, including XXXXXX, XXXXXX, and XXXXXX.

9. I also have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

10. It is my position that, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter.

11. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

XXXXXX
XX/XX/2019

---

I’ve taken the majority of this from my defence, so please let me know if you think it needs restructuring, making more concise or if it needs to be more of a first person account. I’m still defending as registered keeper, although I no longer actually own the vehicle.

Also, should I be including an exhibit for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, or any other correspondence from VCS?

Much appreciated, as always!

Coupon-mad

If this is a VCS 'no stopping' road (and not a car park?) then you will likely lose if you don't get up to speed with VCS v Ward and counter it with the other appeal cases of Jopson & the trespass one, Ransomes.

Search the forum as this is all been spelt out before and is vital in VCS no stopping cases if this is one of those.

wharfviewfine

Many thanks, Coupon-mad,

I've revised my witness statement to include the Ransomes case, please let me know your thoughts - I don't think the Jopson case particularly supports my situation.

---

In the County Court at XXXX County Court
Claim No. XXXX
Between
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXX (Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXX, of XXXX, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On the 23/10/2018, my previous vehicle, registration XXXX, of which I was the registered keeper, was parked at XXXX referring as to the claimant’s own photographic evidence marked Exhibit A; not XXXX as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice received.

3. The ambiguously indicated ’access road’, which falls under the contra proferentem principle and forms the basis of the current claim, consists of a residential street at Wharf View with no entrance signs or road markings indicating parking conditions, referring to the Google street view imagery collated marked Exhibit B. The area possesses inadequate signage relating to the parking conditions brought by the Claimant, with the Claimant's photographic evidence indicating a sign on an adjacent street, of The Towpath development, with terms displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, which was further inadequately illuminated in the Claimant's photographs to be considered visible at the material time of parking.

4. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice from the Claimant, I supplied them with this evidence in a direct appeal on XX/XX/19, following my inability to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service with the PCN number and registration details supplied on XX/XX/2019, referring to email correspondence marked Exhibit D, however they have elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

5. The Claimant’s signage brought as evidence states most prominently “No Parking on the Access Road at Anytime”. It is submitted that these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer which they then forbid and therefore they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and myself, referring to the case of "Ransomes vs. Anderson" marked Exhibit C.

6. In the case of “Ransomes vs. Anderson", the Defendant went to an industrial estate and parked on a road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgement the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with:

“Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the land owner listed below”.

6.2 The District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim.

6.3 It is my belief that similarly, as my vehicle was parked on the 'access road' and not obeying the rules displayed on the notice, no contract was formed with the Claimant.

6.4. In “Ransomes vs Anderson” case, the District Judge said:

“the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.

6.5 In this persuasive appeal decision which subverts the recent VCS vs. Ward appeal, the district judge was plainly right to say that this notice, in contractual terms, was too vague and uncertain to have the requisite effect.

7. 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. 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 I, nor any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant has also failed to evidence that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. I have reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. Nor can a contemporary landowner be reasonably publicly identified via the land registry in order for me to directly appeal, referring to the Land Registry entry marked Exhibit E, nor having contacted several local landlords, including XXXX, XXXX and XXXX.

9. I also have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

XXXX
XX/XX/2019

---

Coupon-mad

I supplied them with this evidence in a direct appeal on XX/XX/19, following my inability to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service with the PCN number and registration details supplied

'inability'? You mean it wouldn't work? Also the appeal didn't follow IAS...other way round.

9. I also have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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

Attach that POFA section as evidence, and also DJ Grand's order (the ACTUAL document). It's on the forum!

wharfviewfine

Unfortunately I ignored the first couple of PCNs on the advice of a friend; so it was the IAS I attempted to submit a late appeal to first. Then I conveyed to VCS the issues in raising the appeal alongside my other arguments. The IAS couldn't raise an appeal as the PCN number and registration couldn't be recognised. I've revised my statement to elaborate this more clearly, alongside including the additional exhibits you mentioned:

---

In the County Court at XXXX County Court
Claim No. XXXX
Between
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
and
XXXX Defendant)

---

Witness Statement

---

1. I am XXXX, of XXXX the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. On the XX/XX/2018, my previous vehicle, registration XXXX, of which I was the registered keeper, was parked at XXXX referring as to the claimant’s own photographic evidence marked Exhibit A; not XXXX as claimed on the Parking Charge Notice received.

3. The ambiguously indicated ’access road’, which falls under the contra proferentem principle and forms the basis of the current claim, consists of a residential street at Wharf View with no entrance signs or road markings indicating parking conditions, referring to the Google street view imagery collated marked Exhibit B. The area possesses inadequate signage relating to the parking conditions brought by the Claimant, with the Claimant's photographic evidence indicating a sign on an adjacent street, of The Towpath development, with terms displayed in a font too small to be read from a passing vehicle, which was further inadequately illuminated in the Claimant's photographs to be considered visible at the material time of parking.

4. Initially responding too late to the initial PCN to appeal to the Claimant directly, I attempted to submit a late appeal to the Independent Appeals Service with the PCN number and registration details supplied on XX/XX/2019, referring to email correspondence marked Exhibit D, however the details were not recognised by the IAS so no independent appeal could be raised. Upon receipt of a letter before claim from the Claimant, I supplied them with the evidence of my attempted independent appeal on XX/XX/19, however this was dismissed and VCS have instead elected to pursue this matter via litigation.

5. The Claimant’s signage brought as evidence states most prominently “No Parking on the Access Road at Anytime”. It is submitted that these notices are attempting to make a contractual offer which they then forbid and therefore they do not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract. In this case neither the Claimant, nor their principal the landowner, is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and myself, referring to the case of "Ransomes vs. Anderson" marked Exhibit C.

6. In the case of “Ransomes vs. Anderson", the Defendant went to an industrial estate and parked on a road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgement the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the noticed was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with:

“Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the land owner listed below”.

6.2 The District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim.

6.3 It is my belief that similarly, as my vehicle was parked on the 'access road' and not obeying the rules displayed on the notice, no contract was formed with the Claimant.

6.4. In “Ransomes vs Anderson” case, the District Judge said:

“the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.

6.5 In this persuasive appeal decision which subverts the recent VCS vs. Ward appeal, the district judge was plainly right to say that this notice, in contractual terms, was too vague and uncertain to have the requisite effect.

7. 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. 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 I, nor any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Claimant has also failed to evidence that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. I have reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. Nor can a contemporary landowner be reasonably publicly identified via the land registry in order for me to directly appeal, referring to the Land Registry entry marked Exhibit E, nor having contacted several local landlords, including XXXX, XXXX and XXXX.

9. I also have the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. In reference to Exhibit G, The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 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.

10. Precedent has also been set by District Judge Grand of Southampton Country Court, referring to Exhibit F, that an attempt to claim "a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay" is an abuse of process.

10. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

XXXX
XX/XX/2019

Umkomaas

2 x paragraph 10.