Vehicle Control Services

NM123

31.      The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Even if the leasehold is shown to be excel, it does not follow the Claimant’s necessarily offered contact to the drivers at this car park, or had such authority from their sister firm, being legal entity Limited company.

32.       It is denied that liability has passed to the registered keeper under the POFA, not least due to the wording of this Claimant's Notice to Keeper letters at the time (the Defendant is awaiting a Subject Access Request reply to review the wording). 

33.       Further, it is denied that any driver would have been acting 'on behalf of' the registered keeper in any kind of agency capacity. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a persuasive June 2017 case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062, heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding the question of keeper liability, that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that their incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd was 'improper'.

34.      I was under no legal obligation to disclose the name of the driver and can prove to the Court that more than one person had access to and was insured to drive the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract, so the balance of probabilities is not tipped in the Claimant's favour if they are wrongly trying to assume that this keeper was the driver. 

35.       ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished from the facts of this case in all respects, given the fact that the Beavis case was considered 'completely different' from ordinary monetary contracts (such as Pay & Display car parks) and centred upon the commercial justification of a deterrent in an otherwise free retail car park with no tariffs that could quantify an actual loss, where the signage was clear and plentiful, and the Defendant was the admitted driver who had seen the terms of the signs which effectively set the price for parking after two hours, at £85.

36.      I am finding it really difficult to understand why it has taken Vehicle Control Service nearly 5 year to issue a case to the county court, sure this would make more sense to do it immediately after the offence had taken place so I could recall who had the car or who was driving but to expect evidence from five years ago is ludicrous.

 

37.      The paragraph numbers mentioned below relate to the Witness Statement filed by the Claimant’s paralegal, Kashif Saeed:

 

38.      Re #17 and 18:  The claimant make reference to the ANPR and entering the full registration followed by photographs supplied, signage and overhead car park as evidence is KS1 (#21-25) please note the date on their evidence dated 17th September 2015 which is after the date of this claim therefore does not prove that this was actually there on the 13th June 2015 as this could have all been updated at a later date.

 

39.       Re #65: The claimant submits that the defendant is the responsible person in charge of the vehicle which has incurred the charges referred to in Mr Saeed witness statement.

 

40.      Re#66: The claimant highlights that I have not supplied the name and address of the driver from 5 years ago knowing full well that it is impossible to remember such detail after such a long period of time which I object to this Witness Statement. 

41.      Re #47: The claimant states that the defendant did not respond to any of the notices referred to in Mr Kashifs WS, nor were the parking charges settled or appealed.

 

42.       I did not respond to the brightly-coloured alarmist Notices sent to me by Excel because I did not receive any at my previous address.  I moved from there in 2017 and received a claims letter at my new address under my new name.  If I had received a letter, I would have enquired at the time to find out who was driving the vehicle.

 

43.      Re #65: The Claimant seeks to apportion blame to a keeper for not responding to their letters and for not naming the driver.

 

44.      This is not an obligation or a failure on my part as it was 5 years ago and the first I had heard about this unpaid ticket was in June 2019.

 

45.       Barrister and parking law expert Henry Greens lade was the ‘POPLA’ (‘Parking on Private Land Appeals’ independent service offered by the BPA) Lead Adjudicator from 2012 – 2015 and Excel was under that Trade Body at the time of the first mentioned in this claim. I adduce as evidence Mr Greenslade’s opinion in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 which confirms that there is no presumption in law that a keeper was the driver and that keepers do not have any legal obligation whatsoever, to name drivers to private parking companies.

 

46.      The Claimant mentions ‘relevant notices’. I submit that, as a registered keeper who was not driving and who only received non-POFA Notices to Keeper (NTKs) which were never my concern nor liability, these are better described as ‘irrelevant notices’.

 

47.      The claimant states that “if the registered keeper of a vehicle denies they were the driver they will need to produce sufficient evidence in support, failing which it is likely to be held that they were driving. The claimant would wish to rely on the precedent of Elliot vs Loake [1982]

 

48.       Elliott v Loake [1982] has no application whatsoever to this case. The Defendant, as the keeper, is under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver, and the onus is on the Claimant to prove their case. It is not, as the Claimant suggests in their Witness Statement, a reverse burden of proof. The POFA Schedule 4 was enacted in 2012 to overcome the issue cited by the BPA, that parking companies were unable to pursue drivers who were not identified. This Claimant cannot dispense with the statute and instead cite an older, irrelevant criminal case of Elliott v Loake, which turned on compelling forensic evidence and made no assumption whatsoever, that a keeper was the driver.

 

49.      Re 108#: the defendant makes reference to an identical claim being discontinued but fails to give any evidence as to why.

50.       

 

51.       Conclusion – no evidence of contravention and the Particulars lack any basis for a claim that I was the driver.

 

52.      One claim has already been discontinued which was on the 15th May 2015 which is identical to this claim however the defendant has decided to pursue one and discontinue the other without giving any valid reason as to why

 

53.      I am an unrepresented consumer who has never attended the County Court before and was not even the driver so I have no knowledge of the events, dates, or signage terms. I strongly object to this Claimant at the eleventh hour, showing me a range of ‘PCNs’ in an attempt to change the Particulars and trying to excuse their legal representative’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4 as an ‘administrative error’.

 

54.      I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving.

 

55.      In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course. Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed?

56.      A similarly poorly pleaded and evidenced ‘private parking ticket’ claim was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 without a hearing, due to a the law firm’s template particulars being held to be ‘incoherent’, failing to comply with CPR 16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

 

57.      The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

I make this statement consisting of 6 pages and 7 Exhibits and declare to the best of my knowledge and belief that the contents of the statement are true and understand that it may be placed before the court.

Coupon-mad

I can't bear to read anything that starts with the grammatical aberration:

I, the Defendant,

Arrghh!

NM123

Is this any better? I used some parts of my defence
the calimant has sent a log and ANPR pics showing entry and exit and the log shows no ticket being purchased which I find shocking as I know I would hvae got a ticket if it was me and like I said I have no idea who it is therefore Im a little worried my defence and WS may not weigh upto much as the defecne I initally submitted was about me guessing what could have happened and now they have provided evidence that no ticket was purchased whatsoever so my defence is flawed.  I feel as I may lose this case as I have no evidence annd have no ictures of the car park as it was 5 years ago even though the pictures the claimant have provided are after the alledged parking ticket and I a sure they re vamped the signage after - do you think I should add the revamp in?

Also I have looked my Notice of Proposed Allocation and there is nothing on there for when my witness statement is due only the court hearing in April, will I get nother letter asking for me to submit WS as Ive read on here its normally 14 days prior or shall I send it once its complete?

Coupon-mad

Is there more than one machine?  Maybe they supplied the payments from just one machine, not the other, or maybe they altered the records like in Excel v Ambler (that  actual Judge's decision transcript is on the forum - search, & put it in as an exhibit).

nosferatu1001

Sure it isnt there? You get a single letter telling you the hearing date
if you just look for the words "witness statement" you wilL NOT find anything. 

NM123

Coupon-mad said:

I can't bear to read anything that starts with the grammatical aberration:

I, the Defendant,

Arrghh!

Amended

NM123

nosferatu1001 said:

Sure it isnt there? You get a single letter telling you the hearing date
if you just look for the words "witness statement" you wilL NOT find anything. 

Just looked at again says something about claimant aying fee or file a properly comleted application(ie one which provides all the required info in the manner requested) for help with fees then the claim will be struck out  by 24th March 

There is another sheet that says fourteen days before which must be it

NM123

Coupon-mad said:

Is there more than one machine?  Maybe they supplied the payments from just one machine, not the other, or maybe they altered the records like in Excel v Ambler (that  actual Judge's decision transcript is on the forum - search, & put it in as an exhibit).

yes there is more than one machine ill add that in too, Thank you

Is there anything I need to take out from my WS?

NM123

Also is there anything else I need to add

I just need to know if this flows as I think ive gone on off on a tangent and does not apply to my ccase

NM123

Just look at logs and there is a code with numbers which are all
identical bir has either a b c or d at the end 
do you think that is each machine ?