Letter Before Claim - VCS

q2uantum

I will re-read the Act shortly to understand what you are saying.

With regards to the Defendant being a company - the answer is no it is myself. This all originally started back in 2015 - and advice at the time was just to acknowledge I was the registered keeper to keep them away from the lease firm (who would just pay it and bill me - via the company i work for + an admin fee) - my original post (which is closed and locked and cant be re-opened) is here - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5157520/pcn-with-an-none-completed-date-on-it

q2uantum

With regards to POFA and the wording on the PCN....

Am I along the right lines of it being linked to Paragraph 4 (4) - The right under this paragraph may only be exercised after he end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice to keeper is given.

Where as on the PCN it states: In the event that payment is not made in full within 28 days of the notice issue date, the vehicles keeper details may be requested from the DVLS and a notice may be sent to the registered keeper

So - They are saying 28 Days after a PCN where as the ACT states 28 days after a NTK is given?

Apologies if I am on the wrong lines ....

cheers

q2

Coupon-mad

You are spot on.

That and the incorrect filled date, and the failure of the PPC to obtain the rk details from the POFA or to serve you with compliant Notice to HIRER documents and enclosures (see para 13/14 of the POFA) means that they cannot hold you liable as lessee, hirer or keeper.

q2uantum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

The specific GDPR word you need about the old data is 'erased' not removed.
Include all that in the email and make them work harder!

This is my response to the DPO which I am sending today regarding this part:

To whom it may concern,

Many thanks for sending me part of the information you hold on me, albeit 3 days past the deadline that the ICO state you have to send it.

Please can you action the following:

Erase the address of xx xxxxxxx xx from the data you hold for me, as that address was moved from 3 1/2 years ago, your harassment company at the time (BW Legal) were advised of the change of address and also advised to pass this information on to you. You must have this information already as you have responded to my SAR request to it.

Within the data you sent me there is not a copy of the Parking Charge Notice nor the PO Statement, can I presume that you do not have these on record? If you do have them can you advise why you have not sent copies of these to me? I, and I am sure the ICO would be very interested to know the reason you have not sent them.

Thanks

KeithP

q2uantum wrote: »

To whom it may concern,
.
.
.
.
.
.
Thanks

Formal business letters start Dear Sirs and end Yours faithfully.

Coupon-mad

What is a PO statement, I think they will ask?

q2uantum

Coupon-mad wrote: »

What is a PO statement, I think they will ask?

I will amend it to state Parking Officer Statement.:)

q2uantum

OK this is my first Draft of the Defence statement - I have found it very very difficult to write in "court speak", so you can probably guess which bits I have copied from elsewhere and which I havent, so please be kind :-)



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxx xxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

2.1 The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

2.2 There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

3. The Particulars of Claim states that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s);. 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. The Defendant also queries the validity of the Parking Charge Notice, due to incomplete data being recorded on it by the Parking Officer.
5.1 The date of the alleged offence was incomplete, recorded just as /1/15
5.2 The location is specified as xxxxx Road, which is a public highway.

6. The Claimants upkeep of the signs should also be brought to the attention of the Court, as the signs have been defaced, missing and also covered in foliage as per photos obtained by the defendant.

7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that Valid Permit Holders should display their permit inside the front windscreen. They do not advise what drivers without a Valid Permit should do, nor that they are not allowed to park.

8. 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 is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
8.1 Further to the above the Claimant does not have any signs on entry to the car park.

9. 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 parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. 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.

11. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

q2uantum

Could I ask one of you experts to give me some advice on my defence posted above. As I said I am struggling with the court speak (never been great at normal english!) so I am sure someone will advise to rewrite certain parts.

Thanks

q2

Coupon-mad

Remove 'liable for the charges' from #2 and just stop at the word 'driver'.

You could add to 8.1. like this:

8.1 Further to the above the Claimant does not have any signs on entry to the car park; however there is a ripped sign and another covered in ivy, and a very old (pre POFA 2012) sign on a low wall at the entrance, saying 'Resident parking only - Clamping in operation - £75 release fee'. Clamping has been illegal since 2012 and it is impossible to enter into a contract based upon what appears to be old illegal warning signs.