VCS at Flora Street, Sheffield

phil25uk

Hello all,

This is to follow up a thread I started on another forum (Google search 'URGENT: VCS PCN/NTK: Flora Street, Sheffield'), which seems much quieter than it used to be, and I keep being directed here anyway. I have read through the NEWBIES sticky several times, and looked through tons of threads.

I have a very similar case to sensai's current thread: my car was parked at Flora Street Retail Park in Sheffield in an unmarked area (no markings at all), in between other parked cars. Driver returned to find 'NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' attached. I have been through appeal etc, LBC, now Court Claim. I have got SAR pack, and have submitted AOS.

I have prepared the following defense, mostly based on sensai's, with a few amendments as advised in replies to his post:

In the County Court at ****
Claim no ****
Between
Vehicle Control Services
And
**** (Defendant)


1 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2 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.

3 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.

4 The Defendant makes no admission as to who was the driver, and no contravention took place as there was no parking “event”. Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds stated in Excel Parking Services Limited V. Lamoureux (C3DP56Q5) that “There is no assumption in law that the registered keeper is also the driver of the vehicle”, as per the High Court decision of R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605.

5 The Claimant is put to strict proof that it is the ‘Principal’ and 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.

6 VCS assert that they issued a Charge Notice ‘CN’ when they actually did not. It is denied that a 'Charge Notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a coloured envelope impersonating authority, bearing the writing 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7 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. 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.

8 This ‘CN’ therefore does not meet the strict requirements of PoFA Para. 7(1), and even if this had not existed, the first postal Notice to Keeper was also non-compliant and this Claimant has failed to establish 'keeper liability'.

9 The date of the alleged contravention (in a non-APNR car park) was **** and the Notice to Keeper was issued on ****, 8 days afterwards. PoFA Para. 8(5) states that a Notice to Keeper must be served not earlier than 28 days after the issue of a (valid) Notice to Driver.

10 PoFA2012 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.

11 The Claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a restricted area. The Claimant's signs state that these are identified by ‘hatched areas’. The registered keeper’s car was stationary in a rectangular unmarked area, and not in any roadway, walkway, entrance or exit. This area is not marked, unlike other areas nearby which are marked clearly with the cross hatch, so the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the area is restricted.

12 The International Parking Community (IPC), of which the Claimant is a member, state in their Code of Practice on Grace Periods;

“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.” 15.1

13 Grace Periods are not stated on any of the car park's signs.

14 The Supreme Court Judges in the Parking Eye v Beavis case held that a Code of Practice is effectively 'regulation' for the private parking industry, full compliance with which is both expected and binding upon any parking operator.

15 The images hosted on the Claimant’s ‘MyParkingCharge’ website cover a time span of 4 minutes 47 seconds in which the car is stationary, therefore the IPC Code Of Practice has not been complied with by the Claimant. The British Parking Association allows a ‘reasonable time’ and **** Council allow 10 minutes.

16 The signage and lettering on and around the site is small, unclear and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice, or the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice whose requirements they also did not follow. The lettering is too small and high up to read when seated in a car requiring the driver to leave the car in order to read the signs.

17 The signs fail the test of large lettering as established in the Parking Eye v Beavis case.



Statement of Truth:

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defense are true.



Signature



Date

This needs to be submitted fairly soon (I think I have one week left), any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

The_Deep

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

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

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

phil25uk

Hi Keith,

Yes to Northampton. Issue date 22nd Feb.

KeithP

phil25uk wrote: »

Yes to Northampton. Issue date 22nd Feb.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a 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.

phil25uk

Thank you Keith,

I had saved the above instructions from a previous thread you had posted in, so thanks again. I have prepared my defense, as per first post here. Any advice about the content would be greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, if you got a 'NOT A PCN' that the claim now pretends was a 'CN'.

phil25uk

Yes, the particulars refer to a CN, whereas the original windshield document was 'NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE'.

What I'm unsure of in that respect is that the follow up letter is entitled 'PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) / NOTICE TO KEEPER (NTK)'. I am assuming this is the 'hybrid' document mentioned in my defense. Does this not count as the CN they reference in the particulars of their claim?

Redx

the first postal notification is your NTK and as far as the KEEPER is concerned, the first real PCN

the windscreen notice is just a sc@m notice of a possible infringement, doesnt meet POFA nor try to

and there is no S in DEFENCE either , lol

phil25uk

Ugh thanks for that Redx. I had assumed it was a UK/US difference but upon investigation you are totally correct. Will update defence before submission.

So, how does your response affect my point #6?:

6 VCS assert that they issued a Charge Notice ‘CN’ when they actually did not. It is denied that a 'Charge Notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars.

Is this point no longer valid, as they did later send a CN (in form of the NTK/PCN letter), and the particulars say "...in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on ******..." (note that they don't state the CN was affixed to car on that date).

Redx

they may well have affixed a CN to the vehicle, but as its not an official NTD then I dont think its worth disputing it. it could have been removed by the ticketeer (ghost ticketing ?) , blown away ? , removed by a third party ?, who cares ?

its the postal NTK that anyone is using as the official invoice, so I wouldnt be complaining about nothing on the vehicle, there could have been a flyer for a curry house as well, dont care about that either