VCS - False Claim

Octavian771

Hi All,

I have been following the various threads with interest and followed the FAQ/Newbie advice thus far and am currently at the stage of being required to submit an amended Defence, following receipt of detailed POC. I don't quite know how it has got this far. I think I just went along with it and felt I was educating myself at the time, I though for such a small claim they'd just drop it - but nonetheless here we are.

The claim is the typical VCS amount of £160 and the charge is 'failing to display a valid permit/ticket inside the front windscreen of the vehicle.'

Now, the vehicle was parked at the location (Aug 2018), but the required (and valid) temporary permit from a registered tenant to the private land was displayed in the windscreen, although it may not have had the start/end times written on it. The vehicle was parked no longer than the 4 hour limit. The only evidence that has been provided thus far - although not included with the POC - are several copies of a photograph of the rear of the car. No front/windscreen shots have been provided to date.

The car has been parked at this locaiton on several occasions using the temporary permit provided by the tenant, and has been since, so I can only think this was an over-zealous holiday covering parking person on this occasion.

I am preparing to issue an AD and will make use of an informed draft from this forum, but where do I stand if I consider this is entirely false and unproven on the basis that:

a) I categorically dispute their claim that a valid ticket/temp permit wasn't displayed, and
b) They have provided no photographic evidence of the front windscreen/lack of permit
c) I can provide a photograph of the front of the car, with a valid permit in the windscreen

Thanks in advance.

Quentin

Please explain what you mean by an "amended defence"

The_Deep

IMO, these shysters should be banned from all residential car parks. Harassing residents and their visitors is not parking management. Depending on the wording of the resident's lease/AST, there may be no neee for a permit at all, read this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

and familiarise yourself with primacy of contract. Also, as this is almost certainly a scam, complain to your MP.

They are very familiar with the MO of these parasitic companies and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

pyb

Octavian771

The CC ordered that:
1. The claimant had to submit an amended POC by X April 2019
2. If not 1 by the due date then the claim wil be struck out
3. By X May 2019, Defendant must file an amended Defence


The order being made without a hearing being held...

Quentin

Ok.

So this is a new defence entirely rather than an amended one.

Start from scratch constructing a defence in relation to the amended poc you received as if you haven't submitted a defence previously

Octavian771

Thanks Quentin.


In my 'new' defence I would be (generally) acknowledging that a 'contract' was in place and that a permit was required to park at that location since the vehicle had the required temporary permit displayed in the windscreen - although no photographic evidence to the contrary has been provided.


Should I avoid any of that, use a template from here and just demand 'strict proof'. Or just adapt a draft from this forum and provide my own photograph / copy of the required permit as a defence?


Cheers, O

Coupon-mad

Use bargepole's residential defence example (NEWBIES thread) and add these facts:

a) I categorically dispute their claim that a valid ticket/temp permit wasn't displayed, and
b) They have provided no photographic evidence of the front windscreen/lack of permit
c) I can provide a photograph of the front of the car, with a valid permit in the windscreen

Umkomaas

The only evidence that has been provided thus far - although not included with the POC - are several copies of a photograph of the rear of the car. No front/windscreen shots have been provided to date.

Have you checked the VCS website to see if they hold any other photos, particularly of the front of the car?

but the required (and valid) temporary permit from a registered tenant to the private land was displayed in the windscreen, although it may not have had the start/end times written on it.

c) I can provide a photograph of the front of the car, with a valid permit in the windscreen

If it’s sufficiently detailed to show that the start/end times were incomplete, that could be an ‘own goal’ for you. Provide nothing that might help the claimant more than you.

Coupon-mad

I seem to recall an 'amended defence' should start with your first defence with the bits you don't want struck through, and new paragraphs added.

So, what did your initial defence say exactly, word for word?

Octavian771

Sorry for the delay, I had trouble logging in to MSE.


Umkomass, as they are still pressing it seems likely they do have further photographs. I haven't gone on to their website to check yet - and will do so - but on that basis, and recognising that the ticket may not have been fully completed, I guess it would be an own goal and I may as well concede and pay up.


Thanks all.

Quentin

You have misunderstood the own goal!

It's they who look to have scored one.

Not the driver!