Letter Before Claim - VCS

q2uantum

Hi Le_Kirk,

I have had nothing from VCS since the 3 day late SAR request information that was missing the PCN and Parking Officers Statement, I emailed them back asking why they hadn't sent them (I already have a copy that BW Legal sent me about 3 years ago) but was surprised not to receive another copy. I also emailed to ask them to erase the old contact details from their system that i advised them of 4 years ago. That was 27 days ago .... still no response to it

Le_Kirk

SARs give PPCs 30 days to respond, if they miss the deadline, complain to the ICO. Keep checking MCOL to see progress, you should (eventually) see DQ sent and received by yourself and claimant. As mentioned earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread) MCOL can be as much as two weeks behind.

q2uantum

Small Update -

SAR request for eraser off old details and missing PCN and Patrol Officers Statement went past 30 days on Monday, so I emailed them again advising of this and gave them 7 days to respond and if they don't I advised them it would be reported to the ICO. Still awaiting a reply!!

MCOL - DQ has now been received and so has their DQ by the CCBC (I have received a copy of it though from them, should I?) Case has now been transferred to my local court - which happens to be their local court as well.... Not sure if this is a good or bad thing!

I will now fully concentrate on my WS and then on my costs

Thanks

q2

q2uantum

Small Update -

Court date has been set for early November, so I will concentrate on getting my witness statement polished. I will not post it up here until closer to the time though (I presume thats the best idea?)

Thanks

q2

q2uantum

Hi All,

I have made a start on my witness statement, so I was wondering if anyone had any advice on it as it stands now? Should I concentrate more on POFA 2012 rather than the signage and incorrectly completed PCN?

Witness statement:

I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned , there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from four years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

4. My Defence is repeated.

5. At the time in 2015, the vehicle was a company car so any other person employed by the company could have driven the vehicle at the time, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

6. This unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report Vehicle Control Services Ltd to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2015.

7. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a period of time then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay £185.00 including the legal insult of interest, for what was apparently an unproven £60 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

8. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my subject access request made on 24/04/19 by email service, requesting any documentation held regarding myself, to be sent . My request was not actioned appropriately (I received 6 questionable colour photos of the vehicle and records showing my old address that I advised them of the change of back in October 2014, without and further information ie copy of the original Parking Charge Notice).

9. The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest.

10. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160.00.


11. Vehicle Control Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

12. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

13. The Claimant is put to 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. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

14. I would like to point out that according to their parking sign this parking area does not offer a free parking period, so the ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply in this case.

15. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was on a Saturday as is shown from the pictures provided to me by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as there are no businesses operating at the parking area at that time, so it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected at that time.

16. The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was left on the vehicle (See Exhibit XX1) has not been completed fully and only states /1/15 for the date, therefore it can not be verified what date the driver was supposed to have agreed to the supposed contract.

17. The location on the PCN is stated as xxxxx Road, which is a public Highway (see Exhibit XX2), which means Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) do not have any jurisdiction over.

18. I have visited the location of the car park and noticed that there is no signage on either entry to the car park (Exhibit XX3) that complies with the parking standards that VCS should comply with. The only signage on the entries to the car park are out of date signs warning of CLAMPING (Exhibit XX4). Clamping has been illegal since 2012, so the use of the non POFA signs make it impossible to enter in to a contract based upon them.

19. The car park itself looks to be a shared car park for some Flats as more than half the car park does not have any signage from VCS on it (Exhibit XX5).

20. The VCS signage on the car park at the time of the alleged infringement of contract, was certainly not in the best of states, which can be seen from the pictures that I took shortly after the alleged contravention. The signage was either damaged, missing or covered in Ivy (See Exhibits XX6, XX7). You can also see from one of the photos supplied by VCS that signage was missing in the area I parked (Exhibit XX8).



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


Look forward to any comments :-)

Thanks

q2

Redx

in 3) you talk about being the RK

YET in 5) you say its a company vehicle

ALSO in 7) you talk about MY DVLA DATA

surely the DVLA do not hold your data on a company vehicle ?

IF ITS A COMPANY VEHICLE , you are NOT the RK, nor do the DVLA know or hold any data on you as regards this company vehicle


you are the day to day keeper , or lessee , or hirer and were never the RK because your details are not on the V5C and never were, VCS did not get your details from the DVLA because they could not get them , they didnt exist

q2uantum

Great points RedX... I was using another person's witness statement and have over looked your points.

I will change 3) to


3. Whilst I was the day to day keeper of the vehicle concerned , there is no evidence of the driver and as this event has been resurrected from four years ago, it is impossible to expect a keeper to recall who might have been driving.

And I will remove 6) and 7).

Thanks so far!

Q2

q2uantum

Hi All,

I have rewritten by Witness Statement about 30 times since I posted the last one, as I wasn't happy with it at all. But I think I am getting closer to being happy(ier) now. I know I have about 7 weeks to complete it before my 14 day deadline so I am not panicking just yet :-)

Could you "experts" please look over this draft and advise on it with regards to my case?

Witness statement:

I, ************ of **************************************** am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. The vehicle was parked in a car park that is located at the end of xxxxxxx Road, xxxxxx. Upon returning to the vehicle the driver noticed the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the windscreen.

4. Whilst I was the day to day Keeper of the vehicle concerned , there is no evidence of the driver and, as the vehicle was a company car, any other person employed by the company could have driven the vehicle at the time, who I have no obligation to name to a private parking firm.

5. Due to being the day to day keeper, and the car being a lease car then I contacted Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) to advise of this, giving them my name and address as the keeper of the vehicle, once I was aware of the charge notice.

6. Upon looking at the PCN, I noticed that it had been incorrectly and not fully completed - (See Exhibit XX01). The date of the alleged offence was recorded just as /x/xx, with no record of the actual day recorded on it. Also The location on the PCN is stated as xxxxx Road, which is a public Highway (see Exhibit XX02) which means VCS do not have any rights to ticket vehicles on the address shown.

7. I visited the location of the car park and noticed that there is no signage on either entry to the car park (Exhibit XX03) that complies with the parking standards that VCS should comply with. The only signage on the entries to the car park are out of date signs warning of CLAMPING (Exhibit XX04)

8. The car park itself looks to be a shared car park for some Flats as more than half the car park does not have any signage from VCS on it (Exhibit XX5). There is no clear signage to distinguish which spaces are controlled by the VCS signs

9. The VCS signage on the car park at the time of the alleged infringement of contract, was certainly not in the best of states, which can be seen from the pictures that I took shortly after the alleged contravention. The signage was either damaged, missing or covered in Ivy (See Exhibits XX06, XX07). You can also see from one of the photos supplied by VCS that signage was missing in the area I parked (Exhibit XX08).


10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) (Exhibit XX09) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

11. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, 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. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
'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…

12. Vehicle Control Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring this case.

13. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

14. The Claimant is put to 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. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

15. I would like to point out that according to their parking sign this parking area does not offer a free parking period, so the ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply in this case.

16. The Claimant is stating that they had a legitimate interest to set the charge. However, the time of the alleged contravention was on a Saturday as is shown from the pictures provided to me by the Claimant. There is no legitimate interest that is being protected as there are no businesses operating at the parking area at that time, so it is unclear what legitimate interest is being protected at that time.


Thanks in advance

q2

Le_Kirk

Change this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
'IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

to this: -

Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing and here I quote from the cases cited above:
'IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

This is to make sure you are quoting from a previous case and not issuing an order to the court.

q2uantum

Le_Kirk wrote: »

Change this: -
to this: -
This is to make sure you are quoting from a previous case and not issuing an order to the court.

Thanks Le_Kirk, I have changed that part.

Q2