VCS Vs Defendant- Albert Street car park

Madaschi

Guys,

I have received a response to my SAR request I sent to VCS:

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX
With reference to your request for a copy of your personal data held on our system in-line with GDPR legislation; please find attached a copy of the information held.

Photographic evidence and data is held on file in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement of a Parking Charge. We comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulations to uphold your rights to Privacy. Our Privacy Notice gives clear reasons for why, from where, and how we obtain and use your Personal Data, under what circumstances we may retain and share your data with third parties and for how long that data may be retained.

Please refer to: http://www.vehiclecontrolservices.co.uk and follow the links for our Privacy Notices in respect of any questions you may have and your rights in respect of your data.

The information sent is contained in a PDF document and/or zip file. It is your responsibility to ensure that you are able to both receive and open the files and to check your spam/junk folders at regular intervals, in case the attachment(s) has been filtered out by your mail server.

Yours Sincerely



Mark

Mark Rxxxxxx (Legal)
Debt & Litigation Manager

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD
2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield, S9 1XE

t: +44 (0) 114 261 7111
f: +44 (0) 114 267 8009
e: markrobinson@excelparking.co.uk

Registered Office: 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield. S9 1XE
Registered in England & Wales No: 2878122
VAT Registration No: 646 3361 35

Car Park Operators throughout the UK..... Purchase, Lease, Manage.

Increase Profits with Excel's Full Turnkey Solutions!

ANPR Specialists..... Parking Control, Statistical Reporting, Access Controls, Vehicle Counts, Highway Surveys,
Mobile Surveillance, Virtual Permits

This email is only for its intended named recipient. Its contents are subject to confidentiality and may be privileged. If you receive this email in
error please ensure that it reaches the correct recipient. Excel Parking Services Ltd does not guarantee that this email has not been intercepted
and edited, or that it is virus free



As you can clearly see, that response was not from assigned Data Protection Officer working for VCS Ltd.

Also, responder refers to VCS Privacy Policies as our, as if VCS is EXCEL but specifically which one it does not clarify. Looking at their privacy policies, it is not clear which I should refer to, as according to Albert Street car park terms and condition display, that car park was not APNR only and neither it was manual only.

Is it not a case for ICO, by any chance? Should I ask them for help to clarify? Something tells me they would be interested in this.

Thank you

Madaschi

Hi all,

it has been a while. So here is an update:

I have received a court allocation in early May with the date of hearing of the claim before Judge Boynton for mid of October.

I have also received the Witness Statement from VCS and I have sent my Witness Statement to VCS and to the Court. Both have been sent by email exactly two weeks before the date of the hearing with a hard copy in the post for VCS that will reach them early morning 13 days before hearing. Hope it will not go against me.

If you would like to see WS from VCS I will be happy to upload it somewhere.

Below is a copy of my WS.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRMINGHAM CLAIM NO:

---

BETWEEN

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED
CLAIMANT

V

DEFENDANT

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, *****************, of ***************, **************, *********, *****, the Defendant in this matter, will say as follows:

1.I make this Witness Statement in readiness for the hearing scheduled for ** October 2019 in support of my defence.

2.The facts and matters referred to in this witness statement are within my own knowledge, except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

3.I assert that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. I was not the driver. I have never driven the vehicle to the location of Albert Street Pay & Display Car Park. In fact, I live just 20 minutes walk from Birmingham City Centre and I try not to drive but to walk instead, for health benefits. I have used few car parks around Birmingham City Centre over the years, paying every time when needed.

4.I have never attended a court hearing before.

5.I am not a native English speaker, therefore please accept my apologies for any wording that may find to be not typical or sometimes even not grammatically correct. I did to my best ability to reduce any mistakes related to that.

6.Within this Witness Statement I make reference to various documents available in the Claimants Witness Statement exhibit bundle YI1-2 as well as mine which are marked AS1-

7.The Defendant denies he was the driver and the Claimant has absolutely no evidence that he was the driver. There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle.

8.The allegation appears to be based on images recorded by the Claimant’s ANPR cameras at the entrance and exit to the Albert Street Pay and Display Car Park, that the Claimant was managing based on the contract with their client, Excel Parking Services Limited (Exibit YI1 of the Claimant Witness Statement). In paragraph 21 of the Claimant Witnes Statement the Claimant provides a false information that their production in exhibit YI2 is evidence of the date, tie and location that the Defendant parked their vehicle in contravention of the Terms and Conditions associated with parking within development. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question, and is not evidence of the Defendant “failed to purchase a parking tariff”. The facts are that the vehicle, registration **********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by the Claimant, to enter and to exit above car park within short period of time. It does not prove that the driver has parked the vehicle in question.

9.It is denied, as the Claimant failed to provide any evidence, that the vehicle in question was parked on site and as a result did not take up space in a parking bay, thus ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is distinguished, due to completely different facts.

10.In the Defence, the Claimant was put to strict proof that they have a contract with the Landowner to pursue charges and take enforcement action in court for parking charges. The Claimant has failed to provide this with its Witness Statement. Instead they have produced a contract with a leaseholder, Excel Parking Services Limited fixed for a period of 60 months from 15th January 2010, which should have expired in 2015. No evidence of that being granted by the landowner to Excel is provided.

11.On the 17/12/2014 a complaint was made to the DVLA that Vehicle Control Services Ltd have been issuing parking charges for Albert Street Car Park, Birmingham. However, this is not a car park where they have permission to operate according to the signs, which state the site is managed by Excel Parking Services Limited. This complaint was given the reference DST1912140006. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued by VCS are:
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C.
It proves that the Claimant was not appointed to manage the site at that time.

12.In paragraph 44 and 45 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Claimant refers to clause 2 of the contract fixed for a period of 12 months from 8th day of SEPTEMBER 2018. “Immediately following expiration of the Term this agreement shall be extended equal to the length of the Term (“the Extended Term”) and will continue to rollover…” There is no evidence of such contract included. Even if the contract existed then Vehicle Control Services was unlawfully issuing PCN dated on 17th April 2018 to the Defendant as it did not have any legal right to do so.

13.On behalf of Vehicle Control Services Limited the contract was signed by H***** T******, employed at that time by BOTH Excel Parking Services Ltd as a Regional Sales Executive AND Vehicle Control Services Limited as a Regional Sales Executive for the North. These employment details are available online on H***n (T*****) M******** LinkedIn profile.

14.In paragraph 12 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement the Claimant falsely claims that it was entitled to contract with the drivers on behalf of the owners of the development in accordance with their appointments. There is no evidence of such appointments included. Excel Parking Services Limited is not an owner of this site. As admitted by the Claimant in paragraph 9 and 48 of Witness Statement of the Claimant the site was leased to Excel, however there is no evidence of any contract between Excel Parking Services Limited and the landowner included that would suggest that Excel has been given any right to manage the site and to appoint any other companies to manage and enforce parking on the site.

15.In the Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraph 43 in reply to the Defence the Claimant falsely refers to the contract between the Claimant and the landowner within exhibit YI1. There is no such contract included and it could not be included as the Claimant had a contract with Excel Parking Services Limited, described in paragraph 8 of the Witness Statement as a lawful occupant and further in paragraph 48 as a leaseholder.

16.In paragraph 55 the Claimant wrongly says that court should construe the Claimant as having given the Defendant a contractual license to enter its private property. The Albert Street Pay and Display Car park was not the Claimant’s private property.

17.The above paragraphs and the entirety of the included copy of the contract between the Claimant and Excel Parking Services does not confirm in any way the Claimants authority over the private property.

18.The above paragraphs are proof of the predatory tactics against motorists.

19.The Parking Charge Notice issued by the Claimant to the Defendant clearly states the value of £100. There is no explanation in the particulars for the additional £60. These sums have been held to be unrecoverable (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue knowingly inflated claims.

20.In Case number F0DP163T on 11/07/19, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out a overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.

21.In Case F0DP201T on 10/06/19, District Judge Taylor echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. The Judge stated: ‘IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...’

22.In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

23.The Claimant failed to include in its Witness Statement mentioned in an extract from the eyeTRAFFIC system showing data of the vehicle registrations entered for all tickets purchased on the day of alleged “contravention” thus they failed to prove that no payment for the vehicle in question was ever made.

24.The Claimant has been Accredited Member of International Parking Community (IPC) and agreed to abide by their Accredited Operator Code of Practice and is responsible to be fully appraised with the Code.

25.In the IPC Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice (AOS CoP), part B, paragraph 15. Grace Periods states that (15.1) Drivers should be allowed a sufficient time to park and read any signs so they make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site and (15.2) 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 Claimant failed to follow that Code of Practice as their Terms and Conditions state “After a vehicle has entered the car park a maximum period of 10 minutes is allowed to purchase a valid Pay & Display ticket or make payment by phone. Instructions are detailed on the Pay & Display machines. Any vehicle /driver remaining on this private land 10 minutes after entry is subject to and agrees in full to the Terms & Conditions”. 10 minutes of “grace period” is not sufficient to make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on site, taking into consideration a rather complicated layout of the site, level of difficulty in finding sufficient parking bay and speed restriction. No time to read any sign to make an informed decision is being given to motorists. There was also no grace period to leave the site included in Terms & Conditions.

26.In paragraph 56 of the Claimants Witness Statement the Claimant states “it was unnecessary to apply an analysis of offer/acceptance/consideration, quiet simply because the contract was informed by mutual promises.” It is contrary to the IPC AOS CoP, part B, paragraph 15, clause 15.1. mentioned above. The Claimant as a member of the International Parking Community clearly did not comply with their Code of Practice.

27.In paragraph 30 of the Claimants Witness Statement the Claimant states “It is settled that individuals may enter into a contract with a sign(…)” The Claimant does not explain further.

28.Reference to Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 QB 163 is refuted as the car park in that case was a barrier car park where the driver would stop and take a ticket from an automatic ticket machine for a barrier to be raised. Albert Street Pay & Display Car Park did not have any barriers in operation at the entrance. It was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat. Lord Denning MR held that: “the offer is made when the proprietor of the machine holds it out as being ready to receive the money. The acceptance takes place when the customer puts his money into the slot. The terms of the offer are contained in the notice placed on or near the machine stating what is offered for the money. The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice before-hand, but not otherwise.” The only similarity could be the offer that was contained within notice at the entrance.

29.Reference to the Claimant wish to rely on the precedent set under Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 is refuted as it does not apply to this case. Driver was known in that case in contrary to this case, where the Defendant is proved to be the registered keeper only, not the Driver.

30.The entrance sign included in exhibit YI1 is not the same as the sign that was available at the entrance to the car park as clearly seen in the Claimants exhibit bundle YI1.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

It is a work of the last two days, as I was working 12 hrs night shifts constantly. I acknowledge that it is far from an ideal WS, I really did my best considering all circumstances. Please review it at your leisure. I will be happy to hear any feedback.

Best regards

Redx

have you added your Exhibits and your costs schedule as well ?

if not , you should do so asap

Madaschi

No, I have not, I am afraid. Should I add them before the hearing? I was planning to relay on the Claimants exhibits if that could be ok in my case. What is your opinion?

KeithP

But in para 6 you say:

6.Within this Witness Statement I make reference to various documents available in the Claimants Witness Statement exhibit bundle YI1-2 as well as mine which are marked AS1-

What are the things 'marked AS1-'?

Just one example...
You should include evidence of the quote made in para 22. The image of the Order from Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28.

And evidence of all the other claims you make in your WS.

Madaschi

OK, got it. Thanks a lot!

How about the content in general?

Coupon-mad

Very good basis for an Albert Street WS but the content is nothing without evidence.

There should be quite a few enclosures to back up your points, not least printouts of the Parking Prankster Blogs about Albert Street, and pics of the signs where Excel's name appears, so you can show the Judge the issue about the confusion as to who is offering a contract.

The fact that your evidence from the Parking Prankster's blogs PROVES that Albert Street signs for some years, were in Excel's name, also DISPROVES their contention that VCS have been running it for ten years or more (I bet the WS says that).

Can't be true - the mixed Excel/VCS signage proves them wrong.

It is up to you to prove them liars, without using the word 'liars'!

Make it clear that this is about THIS same Claimant, by pointing it out:

22.In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019,

Madaschi

Here is the little flower I have found:

THE INTERNATIONAL PARKING COMMUNITY

ACCREDITED OPERATOR CODE OF PRACTICE

PART B
Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators

1. Establishing Yourself as the ‘Creditor’.

1.1 If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you
must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you
as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need
not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an
operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient
right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator
directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.

Well, well, well...

and here is a bit from VCS vs Ibbotson:

10 JUDGE McILWAINE: You have raised issues of interpretation of the sign and there are issues in relation to the amount
11 of the penalty, the point also is I amjust quietly looking through this as you have spoken to see where
12 there is an assignment to permit Vehicle Control Services Limited to sue individuals who have
13 trespassed on the land belonging to a customer. I do not quite see it. This is not a straightforward
14 case, is it? Can you help me on that point?
15 MISS COATES: What is your question, sir?
16 JUDGE MciL W AINE: Where is it in this contract set out that you have the right when there is a
17 trespass or a breach of contract by Mr Ibbotson with Wickes or a trespass on Wickes' property, where
18 have they assigned you the right to issue proceedings in your own name for a breach of contract
19 against Mr Ibbotson?
20 MISS COATES: It is not actually written in the contract. It is part ofthe service that we offer.
21 JUDGE MciL W AINE: That is the point, is it not? You offer a service to your customer and
22 your service to your customer is, "We enforce parking". That is very well, but then the enforcement
23 that you do is a matter for you and your customer until you issue proceedings and then, once those
24 proceedings are issued, then I must ask where is your right to issue proceedings in your own name for
25 a breach of contract or a trespass upon land which is not owned by you or, indeed, as I can see here,
26 assigned to your specific control?
27 Ifi have missed that on this contract, I am quite happy to be directed to it, but I do not see where
28 that happens. There is a distinction between you being permitted to try and recover the amount of
29 compensation that you adduce is due through one route. I have to say that is a matter for yourselves
30 but, once you issue proceedings, then the question is, "What is your right ... " If this case was brought
31 by Wickes, I would not be raising the issue, but it is not; it is brought by yourselves, and it would be
32 very helpful to me if you could explain to me where your right to issue proceedings arises in this
33 contract.
34 MISS COATES: It is an implied right.
35 JUDGE MciLWAINE: No, it is not an implied right. This is a significant step. You have no
3 6 locus in this contract to take this step. You cannot have an implied right, otherwise it would get pretty
37 messy out there pretty quickly. Where is your assigned right to enforce ... Take it one step further, I
10
1 suppose. Ifl have parking issues at my house and I say to Mr Ibbotson, "Enforce the parking", and
2 somebody beaches it, I do not give Mr Ibbotson the willy-nilly to go and issue proceedings to whoever
3 he likes from whomever he likes.
4 MISS COATES: Why not?
5 JUDGE MciL W AINE: It is not his right. Where is the right for you to bring this action, which I
6 think is the point that you have made, Mr Ibbotson, is it not?
7 MR IBBOTSON: Yes.
8 JUDGE MciL W AINE: I am sure this must have been tested somewhere. You must have dealt
9 with it somewhere and there must have been a court case somewhere where this has been dealt with
10 and sorted. Help me.
11 MR DOUGH: You are looking at me. I am a Regional Operations Manager. My side of it is ...
12 Excuse my ignorance on the law side of this, sir, but the way I am looking at this is we are working as
13 a representative or an agent of Wickes.
14 JUDGE MciLWAINE: Be careful here ...
15 MR DOUGH: Okay.
16 JUDGE MciL W AINE: ... because the next point is ...
17 MR DOUGH: Excuse my ignorance.
18 JUDGE MciL W AINE: No, no, no. I am not criticising you, but it is illegal to act as an advocate
19 for another party when you do not have a right of audience. In any event, you are not guilty of that
20 today because you have brought the action in your own names and your advocate has come today
21 impeccably prepared except for the issues that I really need to get to and I cmmot believe that this has
22 not been tested somewhere, and you are the ones here today. It is not for Mr Ibbotson to disprove, it is
23 for you to prove, and I am not going to adjourn this and bring this back again, so let me just go
24 through it again so that we are absolutely clear. On what basis do you say you have the right to issue
25 an action against Mr Ibbotson for a breach of contract with Wickes or a trespass upon their premises?
26 MISS COATES: Could I ...
27 JUDGE MciL WAINE: Please do. It is your contract. (Document passed to Miss Coates).
28
29 MR IBBOTSON: Ifl can I turn it up to you, there is, in my Defence actually, a very large one ...
30 JUDGE MciLWAINE: Thank you. I will come to it in a second. Where does it say that in the
31 contract you are authorised to issue proceedings?
32 MISS COATES: It does not, sir.

Oh well...

Madaschi

OK, my witness statement exhibit bundle has been posted to both the county court and the claimant today. Hearing is in 12 days and I really hope that it will not affect my defense.

nosferatu1001

Defence, still. Turn on UK spell check...

I would have suggetsed hand deliveirng to your local court. Then you know it got there. Did you have proof of postage to the court and claimant as well?