Letter Before Claim - VCS

q2uantum

Interesting thought that Red_X, at no point through the near enough 5 years this has been going on has the driver been disclosed to the scammers. Do you think that the signage and incomplete PCN would be enough on its own if the driver was disclosed? I know that you can't be 100% certain and I certainly wouldn't hold you to it! I am uncertain hence why I asked about adding more about POFA.

I have added the more recent Caernarfon case to #11 as well as the Southampton one.

Redx

the problem is that if you look at other cases where the defendant is asked by the judge who the driver was, consider the answer carefully, never lie

if what you say is true, then you are relying on POFA not applying and so no keeper liability , in which case what happened on the day isnt relevant, its semantics about the laws, especially POFA

a driver is accountable for up to 6 years, so sometimes in a few cases its better to have a driver led defence , as I mentioned in this thread today

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6047088/hx-car-park-court-hearing

only you know your own case, so only you can word it, but be careful of traps that could set you back, the biggest trap of all is "who was the driver" ,as Chris and Vicky Huhne found out to their costs , or as that recent MP solicitor who was struck off , jailed for lying and lost her seat (job loss + extra job loss)


I never dissect a case and give a legal determination unless its obvious or common sense, I like most on here have no legal training, hence read my signature and go to legal beagles if you want a legal assessment of your case


Martin Lewis would tell you to consult a legal professional

1505grandad

Well, if you going down the keeper only route you had better amend para 9 - line beginning "You can also see from one of the photos supplied by VCS that signage was missing in the area....................."

q2uantum

1505grandad wrote: »

Well, if you going down the keeper only route you had better amend para 9 - line beginning "You can also see from one of the photos supplied by VCS that signage was missing in the area....................."

Good Spot 1505!

q2uantum

Redx wrote: »

the problem is that if you look at other cases where the defendant is asked by the judge who the driver was, consider the answer carefully, never lie

if what you say is true, then you are relying on POFA not applying and so no keeper liability , in which case what happened on the day isnt relevant, its semantics about the laws, especially POFA

a driver is accountable for up to 6 years, so sometimes in a few cases its better to have a driver led defence , as I mentioned in this thread today

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6047088/hx-car-park-court-hearing

only you know your own case, so only you can word it, but be careful of traps that could set you back, the biggest trap of all is "who was the driver" ,as Chris and Vicky Huhne found out to their costs , or as that recent MP solicitor who was struck off , jailed for lying and lost her seat (job loss + extra job loss)


I never dissect a case and give a legal determination unless its obvious or common sense, I like most on here have no legal training, hence read my signature and go to legal beagles if you want a legal assessment of your case


Martin Lewis would tell you to consult a legal professional

Hi RedX,

I have had a good think about this over the weekend after your post. I "think" I have decided that this could be better being a driver led defence. I think I am confident that the signage (lack of, damaged etc), incomplete PCN, road name, badly laid out car park etc are going to be good enough for this.

I am going to change my witness statement later to reflect this so will post up the new version when I have done.

q2uantum

Afternoon all!

Here is my latest Witness Statement, defending the case as the Driver.

Can you please look over it and offer any further advice?

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 I noticed the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the windscreen.

4. 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.

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, so that they would communicate with myself and not the lease company.

6. I received a letter from BW Legal, who claimed to be acting on behalf of VCS with regards to this alleged offence, which I duly replied to appealing that the signage wasn’t clear, was damaged and with some signs missing, so it was hard to tell which spaces if any that VCS controlled. I received communication back from them saying that my appeal was unsuccessful and that they were going to continue to chase for payment.

7. I then asked for proof of the signage on the day in question, which they eventually sent me through some pictures which were dated xx months after the date in question.

8. For some unknown reason BWLegal then started the entire process again, sending me their original letter, but this time with a different reference on it. I contacted them back asking them to resolve this ASAP, and that one of their departments needed to speak to the other department. After a gap of about 2 years, VCS then sent me a Letter Before Claim from their own company, rather than BWLegal.

9. I re-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). These signs are still there today, nearly 4 ½ years after the alleged offence.

10. The car park itself is a shared car park for some Flats, 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, so how could anyone know where they can or can not park.

11. As stated earlier 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 (a few weeks later, rather than the x months later that VCS revisited to send me pictures of the new signs that had put up!). The signage was either damaged, missing or covered in Ivy (See Exhibits XX06, XX07, XX08). You can also see from one of the photos supplied by VCS that signage was missing in the area the car was parked (Exhibit XX09).

12. The wording on the signage is also not very clear or who can or can not park there. It only states VALID PERMIT HOLDERS have to display a permit, nowhere does it state that you cannot park there if you do NOT have a permit.

13. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) (Exhibit XX10) 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.

14. 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 and here I quote from the cases cited above:

“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 judgement 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”

Also that is not an isolated judgement striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. 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.''

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

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


Thanks

q2

q2uantum

Just a friendly bump asking for any further comments or advice in this, as it had fallen down to page 5 :-)

1505grandad

Para 12 - "The wording on the signage is also not very clear or who can or can not park there."

perhaps - "not very clear as to who can or cannot park there". Have you taken into account the post #21 by C-m re the Valid Permit Holders only point case law?.

q2uantum

I will amend #12

And I'd totally forgot about pace v lengyel for the valid permit holders part. I've got the court papers for it, so will re go through it and grab the important parts out and reference it. Thanks for the heads up!

Coupon-mad

This is why I get people to put their arguments & case law into their defences, because by the time they get to WS stage they forget. At least I hope it might help people to see what they put in their defence and remember the case law they are meant to be filing.

Always revisit your defence and use what you said there, in the WS.

Also make it clear that the Caernarfon case is about THIS Claimant, so (even though that strike out is now being contested by VCS who want it set aside!) they cannot pretend not to have been fairly warned about not adding spurious costs in an effort at double recovery.

You need to decide whether you are defending this as admitted driver as you seem incapable of not dropping yourself in it, and I'd worry about your stance as 'keeper' at the hearing:

Upon returning to the vehicle I noticed the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) attached to the windscreen.

Really? Be the admitted driver then, or don't say such things!

And due to this, object to the interest, obviously, if they've tried for 5 years worth!

near enough 5 years this has been going on