VCS Letter Before Claim Clarification Request

LordHorrendous

Hi all

I have read the newbies thread and know having received a LBC that my next step is to send an SAR and follow-up email , and just want to ask a couple of clarifying questions to make sure I understand exactly what to do. I'm grateful for all help and advice.

Quick context: Received a parking charge from VCS in February due to a parking app auto-filling the wrong details. Responded by appeal explaining situation and that we had paid for the space for the time used so no basis for charge - this was (predictably, I now realise) refused. VCS gave a number of reasons for refusing the appeal and we ignored them from this point on. We have now received a Letter Before Claim direct from VCS with forms to fill in and a response date of 4/7/19.

I believe we have a strong defence (several reasons I won't go into here unless asked) and am willing to go to court, but want to make sure I handle this stage correctly, so have the following questions:

The letter from VCS states that having received our response, they have 30 days before they can action a court claim - does the SAR on-hold period mean this 30 days won't start until the SAR is fulfilled? Do I need to specify this in the email that I send?

I've seen a number of threads stating that the email should state that I am seeking debt advice - is it a good idea to include this detail?

Do I need to respond to the letter by either returning the forms (I have no intention of filling in the financial section) or email stating that we reject the charge and the reasons why, or is it enough to simply acknowledge receipt of the letter as part of the SAR follow-up email?

Am I under any obligation (or would it harm me in court if I didn't) to provide VCS with the reasons I reject the charge at this stage? I believe our case is solid, but don't want to send them details that they could use against me if later going to court.

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Yes, say separately in a reply to the Litigation Team (not the DPO you send the SAR to) saying you are seeking debt advice...but submit the SAR first to put yourself a bit ahead on timing, IYSWIM.

Received a parking charge from VCS in February due to a parking app auto-filling the wrong details.

Pretty sure one if the defence examples in the NEWBIES thread is about an app that failed by bringing forward old data, contrary to the GDPR and riding roughshod over the law about timely/fair and necessary data storage.

You can adapt that template example when you get your claim.

Am I under any obligation (or would it harm me in court if I didn't) to provide VCS with the reasons I reject the charge at this stage?

A Judge would perhaps look more favourably on a party who had engaged in the pre-action protocol for Debt Claims. Read it and try to comply without spilling the beans if you'd rather not declare your full hand at this stage.

You should be open though, and are expected to try to resolve the dispute (not pay!).

LordHorrendous

Thank you very much for the advice: it's been very useful to understand what to do. The SAR has been sent and a holding acknowledgement email is to follow.

I am also going to return the reply forms in the spirit of openness and engagement (for the benefit of the judge) and will give this statement as to why I dispute the charge. I'd be grateful if you could give a quick 'yes' or 'no' over whether it's a good idea to include this at this stage:

Section 1 Continuation Page
The debt is disputed for the following reasons:
A payment was made for the use of a parking space on this day, for the duration that the vehicle VRM: xxxxxxxxx was parked. As a result, there has been no loss of income to the owner of the car park or any other party.

As evidenced by photographs provided by VCS, the signs on site, which state the ‘contractual terms and conditions’ of use of this carpark, make no mention of any terms attached to the use of the Parkonomy.com service. There is no mention of any requirements relating to the entering of VRMs while using the Parkonomy.com service. For this reason, the use of an incorrect VRM in paying for parking on this day cannot be considered a breach of any terms and conditions.

Additionally, in your rejection of the initial appeal, you state:
‘We must advise that signs on site clearly display a Helpline telephone number which is available for use by motorists who have any problems or queries in respect of their use of the car park. In this case the driver should have called that Helpline so that arrangements could be made or advice given in respect of any problem they had.’

However, the notice affixed to the windscreen of the vehicle on this day clearly advised ‘THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE’ (again, as evidenced in photographs provided by VCS). As nobody travelling in the vehicle VRM: xxxxxxxx was aware that an incorrect VRM had been entered, and the wording of the notice explicitly stated ‘not a parking charge’, there was no reason to believe that there was a problem at this stage and so no need, according to all available information, to contact the helpline.

Thank you for your help!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, just no filling in the finance/income & expenditure pages!

LordHorrendous

So we're at court claim stage now...
Firstly, thank you to everyone involved with this forum and the thorough advice you have put together to help people like me; it has been invaluable.  We received this ticket over 18 months ago and have been slowly escalating through the stages.  The ticket came about due to an error with a parking app.  We're at the stage of submitting our defence by Weds 1.7.20 and have spent the last couple of weeks chipping away at a draft defence (sections 17 and 18 of the template) that I'm hoping to get some feedback on.  Hoping it makes sense and is appropriately detailed, worded and organised, and that more practiced eyes on this forum will spot any rookie mistakes on our part.  We also have photographs of both signs referred to - do I need to mention this in the statement?  Draft follows below:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

17.  (haven't changed anything in this bit from the template - it's accurate as far as keeper not driver but not 100% sure if the NTK was POFA compliant - I've tried my best to make sense of it but still not confident I know)

The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.  Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the keeper, they were not the driver of the vehicle at the time.  Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.  

18 (the bit I've written)

There has been no breach of the terms and conditions of parking, as set out by the signs on display in the car park at the time the parking event took place (xx.xx.xx).  This is because the terms and conditions set out within those signs do not cover the particulars of this parking event, and so no agreement could be entered into.  This is proven by the following facts:

The claimant’s assertion that the terms and conditions of parking were breached for the stated reason: “parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit” (exact wording from Notice to Keeper) is impossible to support.  The parking signs, at the time of the parking event, stated the terms and conditions of parking in full: “If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times.”.  The car park also allowed payment via the Parkonomy app, which does not provide any form of physical ticket that can be displayed.  The Parkonomy app was the method used to pay for this parking event.  It cannot, therefore, be reasonably claimed that the terms and conditions of parking were breached, as the claimant’s use of Parkonomy as a method for customers to pay for parking means that many customers will not have a ticket/permit on display and that the claimant accepts this.

The claimaint’s assertion that the terms and conditions of parking were breached because an incorrect registration number was entered on the Parkonomy app is also impossible to support.  The signs on display in the car park at the time the parking event took place made no stipulation as to registration details being required in any form at all, and as such there can be no claim that there was any breach of terms and conditions on this count either, as no terms and conditions had been set.

The claimant has acknowledged that the terms and conditions in place at the time of the parking event did not include any requirements to provide any registration details for a parking session to be valid.  At an unknown date since the parking event in question (some time after xx.xx.xx), the claimant has updated their signage in this car park.  These new signs now explicitly state in addition to the original wording “When making payment via phone or online the FULL and ACCURATE VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER of the vehicle on site must be entered.".  This is clear acknowledgement that previous terms and conditions did not make any stipulation regarding registration details, and as such, no breach of terms and conditions could have taken place during the parking session in question, given that it took place under the old terms and conditions that did not include this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to anyone who has taken the trouble to read over this; I'm grateful for any advice you can offer.

nosferatu1001

What was the date of issue?
Did you do the AOS online?

nosferatu1001

VCS do not prouce POFA NtKs to my mind. Dont be unsure - check against POFA. Its a fairly simple document. For example, do they even claim the keeper is liable, or do they just assume the keeper is the driver? 

nosferatu1001

For 18 - you can make that more concise. Speak in the active voice (put the issue first, rather than an explanation) and it will make it shorter. 

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and in some cases, cancellation.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

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

LordHorrendous

nosferatu1001 said:

What was the date of issue?
Did you do the AOS online?

29.5.20, and yes: AoS was done online.

LordHorrendous

Thanks @nosferatu1001 and @D_P_Dance (to whom I believe birthday congratulations are in order? I hope you have a lovely day).  I will work on your advice today.