Schoolboy error

Coupon-mad

It should just be headed 'DEFENCE' but don't submit it just yet:

DEFENCE STATEMENT

Definitely add the extra bit suggested.

And how about an email to VCS tonight, really short and to the point:

Dear VCS,

Re claim xxxxxxxx

A little word in your ear about this doomed claim. You have the wrong Defendant.

The Defendant was not the registered keeper or driver of vehicle registration XXXXXX on the 15/11/2015 when it was parked at Abbey Walk Retail Park, Selby. The Defendant informed the Claimant of this fact on 24/11/2015 when appealing (as the carer and having Lasting Power of Attorney for the Registered Keeper due to a recent diagnosis of Dementia).

Good luck with twisting the law of agency in this case against a passenger of the car who was exercising legal power of attorney to reply to a scam PCN for the registered keeper.

Given the short time frames issued by the court, you have until Thursday 25th July 2019 to confirm the claim is discontinued, after which I will proceed to defend and counter claim for £750 for abuse of data processing law under the GDPR (DPA 2018), including unlawful harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, citing Ferguson v British Gas as authority to support the counter claim.

I forward to your response.

Yours Faithfully

Flyingmachine

I emailed VCS as advised by Coupon-mad on 17/7/19, I received an acknowledgment of receipt (as I did when requesting SAR) but heard nothing since!
I have had acknowledgement MP’s of my complaints ��
I have added to my Defence as suggested.

IN THE COUNTY COURT
BETWEEN CLAIM NO: XXXXXX
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (CLAIMANT)
-and-
XXXXX (DEFENDANT)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
1.1 Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant’s £60 ‘Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’)’.
2. The Defendant was not the registered keeper or driver of vehicle registration XXXXXX on the 15/11/2015 when it was parked at Abbey Walk Retail Park, Selby. The Defendant informed the Claimant of this fact on 24/11/2015 when appealing (as the carer and having Lasting Power of Attorney for the Registered Keeper due to a recent diagnosis of Dementia) the Parking Charge Notice attached to the vehicle.
2.1 The Registered Keeper did not receive a Notice to Keeper, as required under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012.
3. The facts are, the vehicle, registration XXXXX was parked with the registered keeper’s Blue Badge on display (the correct way up) on the dashboard, in an area marked for disabled parking. The expiry date did not show clearly on the photograph submitted as evidence from the Claimant as flash photography was needed due the dark and damp weather, this reflected the light and distorted the photograph. The Blue Badge was in date, this date was legible to the naked eye.
4. The Claimant passed the account to BW Legal on 19/06/2016 with an outstanding balance of £154. The Defendant emailed BW Legal on 03/08/2016 denying the debt and informing them the Defendant was neither the Registered Keeper or driver, requesting they reiterate this information to their client. These assertions indicate the Claimant has failed to comply with Civil Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras 7.3 -7.5.
5. The Claimant is now seeking £160, plus Court Costs. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at section 4(5) states the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Parking Charge Notice, in this case £60. The claim total has changed from £154 to £160, which includes an additional charge for ‘Legal representative’s costs, which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
5.1 The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant owes. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, with reference to the judgement in Parking Eye 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 to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Claim number F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor, Southampton Court, 10th June 2019.
5.2 Where loss can be quantified, the ‘complex’ and ‘completely different’ Beavis case is inapplicable, as was found in ParkingEye v Carguis, A0JD1405 at Wrexham County Court.
5.3 Not only are such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred legal costs. BW Legal boasted in Bargu v BW Legal Ltd of processing ‘millions’ of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of robo-claims at all, on balance of probabilities.

6. I request the Court dismiss this claim on the grounds that the Claimant is pursuing the wrong Defendant.
The Defendant believes that this matter is wholly unmeritorious. The Claimant has no evidential basis to peruse a civil action against the Defendant. If this matter proceeds to litigation, the Defendant will seek their costs of defending the claim pursuant to CPR Part 27(1)(g) to include the costs of pre-action correspondence on an hourly rate basis, where the Claimant knew or ought to have known that litigation would be unsuccessful.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.





Any further advice would be gratefully received.

Flyingmachine

Defence submitted.

Mark2spark

Just bumping so I can keep an eye on this.

Good luck. Nothing wrong with the defence IMO.

The_Deep

If they do get this to court consider claiming costs for unreasonable behaviour, CPR27.14(2)(g).

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, 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, and access to the 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/enacted

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

Flyingmachine

Directions Questionnaire completed as #newbies thread.

KeithP

Flyingmachine wrote: »

Directions Questionnaire completed as #newbies thread.

And copy sent to the Claimant of course?

Flyingmachine

I didn’t receive a reply to my email to VSC in July. I have received SAR information and now have a court date, I shall be attending. I am preparing my witness statement.

Coupon-mad

OK, and a skeleton argument like has been advised to these VCS Defendants this week. You need o get your had around the CRA 2015 to kick out the fake added £60, as covered in CEC16's case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76526851#Comment_76526851

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76522321#Comment_76522321

And a costs schedule is also best filed & served nice & early.

Flyingmachine

I won my case.
Thank you all, for your advice and support.
The Judge dismissed the case, I could show I informed them I was not RK and I denied being the driver (I was not, in any case). It was a lot less stressful than I thought it would be.
VCS representative didn’t have a copy of my defence or witness statement with them, I sent it ‘tracked’ to the Court and VCS but it was not in their bundle!
I was awarded costs.