VCS at Flora Street, Sheffield

phil25uk

Okay, thank you for the clarification Coupon-mad. I know it is frustrating for regular members of these forums to see the same things come up each time, I really have invested a lot of time into reading through countless threads here and elsewhere.

phil25uk

Ready to go?

In the County Court at Sheffield

Claim no *****

Between

Vehicle Control Services (Claimant)

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, Paragraphs. 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 Paragraph 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 Paragraph 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. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper is invalid as it demands payment “within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice”. PoFA 8(2)(f) states this should be “the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given”.

11. PoFA Paragraph 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.

12. 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.

13. 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

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 defence are true.



Signature



Date

Coupon-mad

Remove this as Judge S-R in Excel v Lamoureux cited it wrongly, she wasn't looking at what she thought she was:

as per the High Court decision of R (on the application of Duff) v Secretary of State for Transport [2015] EWHC 1605.

And add in a clear objection to the made up 'added costs' that I expect are there:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75520074#Comment_75520074

phil25uk

Good morning,

I have messed up with this case, and not provided a witness statement in time. I am just now re-reading the directions which clearly state I need to provide copies of documents and written statement I intend to rely on no later than 14 days before the hearing. Today is the 2nd and the hearing is on the 12th. VCS sent their evidence to me via next day delivery, dated 29/08/2019, which is also less than 14 days before the hearing. Should I contact the court to see if they will allow my evidence/statement now? I haven't even prepared it.

I am very intimidated by VCS's witness statement as it is 88 paragraphs long, and frankly I don't understand large sections of it. I feel I can confidently argue my case for the signage and markings being misleading (park only between lines/do not parked in restricted areas), but aside from that I'm feeling pretty concerned. Any top tips?

Redx

Put in your WS asap and apologise for the lateness , mentioning that the claimant has also been Late which contributed to yours being late , do it today , include your exhibits plus costs schedule as well

Parking companies regularly send massive statements , most of it is templated waffle , so don't be intimidated, it means they haven't narrowed the issues

Get your bundle done asap , you have had months to prepare

Coupon-mad

This has happened before, as everything has on this forum, and all you need to do is search for 'never too late witness statement' or similar keywords.

You MUST get this done and filed & served with evidence and your draft costs schedule, this week.

It will likely not be a problem as long as you do as above, AND turn up for the hearing. If criticised by the C or the Judge for a few days lateness, explain that you are not experienced in court matters and that the Claimant has had plenty of time to read your submissions and has not in any way been disadvantaged or ambushed either by your statement, evidence or costs schedule, all of which is in keeping with your pleaded defence and is nothing new. And theirs was also late...

Do the search above and read what others did. Nothing is new here.

You also need to search VCS witness statement (or VCS and a surname from the WS case law they've quoted, like 'Kumari' or 'Crutchley' or whatever template (seen it all before) drivel is in there).

No thinking yours in unique nor ask us how to rebut it, as it is a template demolished before loads of times. Those are the threads to read, it will actually be quicker and better for your case and for your confidence/research, if you search & read other threads now and not stay here trying to compose your own version.

phil25uk

Thanks both, have been reading through VCS WS threads since my last post. So much to pick through, working on it.

Clairns

I went through the process all the way to court (twice!) with VCS.............. and they also submitted their witness statement right at the last minute. Maybe because they have such a backlog, and maybe because they don't want it to act as a prompt to the defendant.

I also received a 80 plus page document, that can be intimidating at first, but when you spend time going through it- most is just waffle not even relevant to the case.

I think it helps that VCS sent their witness statement in to you late too- so please mention this in court- follow CM's great advice.

My first hearing with VCS was adjourned as their representative numpty in court said VCS hadn't received it (I had e-mailed and posted it- it but the judge wanted proof of postage, not an e-mail). So if you do send it make sure you ask the post office for proof of postage (I believe it is free).

From what I can gather there are 4-5 VCS hearings at Sheffield County Court a day........ even the girl in the office said 'they get a lot of complaints about them'. So hopefully the judges are getting fed up with the antics too- they are certainly clogging up the court system.

My case was dropped after I put constant pressure on the managing agent. (daily e-mails to anyone I could find). The managing agent so appalled at their behaviour has now cancelled all contracts they had with VCS across the north of England- costing them tens of thousands of pounds...............

Good luck in your case. They really are the most unprofessional company you could ever imagine- but that means they make mistakes- and you can win!

nosferatu1001

Their WS is likely absolutely nothign of the sort - it will intro new legal arguments not pleaded before, it will make assumptions, and most likely it will just have actual lies in it.

phil25uk

I won!

The hearing was short. We were introduced, and the judge made clear that he was very aware of the Flora Street car park, and that the matter of this specific unmarked part of the car park had come up numerous times, always ruled in favour of the defendant. He complimented me on my documentation, but it just came down a mixture of their unclear signage regarding 'parking between the lines', and the lack of markings on the ground to indicate a restriction.

And the better news: the judge agreed to ALL of my costs!

I charged £60 for loss of earnings, £190 for 10 hours spent working on the case and £10 for stationery, making it a total of £260. The VCS rep argued that it wasn't unreasonable to have taken the matter to court, but I maintained that it was my opinion - as backed up by the judge's comments regarding the lack of markings - that this area of the car park was being used to generate income from drivers not contesting the tickets. The judge agreed, and ordered them to pay up within 21 days.

Thank you to everyone on the forum for your input. Although at times I strayed from your advice (and missed deadlines) the judge said it was clear that I had 'had some training or at least put in a significant amount of research', and could have still beaten VCS on other points in my very strong argument.

I forgot to ask about transcripts; are these sent to you or are they accessible somehow?