VCS parking in restricted area & claim from from CCBC

upstanding

No nothing from SAR yet - I did send one to DVLA as well to enquire if a PPC had contacted them - I have had a response back from that confirming that VCS enquired with them on 14th July 2015 - 35 days after alleged incident. will try and cut and past photo up now.

upstanding

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/brW8p3TS/IMG-2444.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/9FwCJHmd/KRVJ9098.jpg[/IMG]
hopefully this will have worked photos of car and photos of claim form from CCBC

No postcode has been recorded on parking charge notice or debt collectors letters of the claim form -

KeithP

Snakes_Belly

It looks as if you could be slightly on the cobbles. If so it's fractional which is probably why they have not chased you earlier. Why VCS when the car park is leased to Excel?
I think that I would find out who was/is responsible for the road? It also may be worth purchasing a plan of the car park that is leased to Excel. It will only cost £3.00 and you could claim that back if the case goes to court. It may not.

upstanding

At the time VCS had a sign up stating NO Parking at Anytime - this was situated in the cobblestones but cars parked in front of that all the time because they were on the road. Think I have read somewhere on forum the sign stating NPAA infers no contract can be entered into? As the photo shows the car was on the road (? i see what you mean about tyres) yet letter issued stated it was parked in units 1-4 grain ware house which are no longer there - opposite site of road from where car was and also as you pointed out long before there were yellow lines.

upstanding

We have contacted SCC and they 'think' that the first part of the road is owned by SCC and thought to be called 'unknown road off Derby Street' leading to Millers Lane (at the 90 degree bend) but nothing showing on their mapping system so, the more we dig the more confusing it appears!!

upstanding

UPDATE Having spent the last few days trying to do more research I have been able to get confirmation from the Land Registry that the road we were parked on does indeed belong to the Council and therefore does not meet the definition of 'relevant land'- I have purchased copy of such from LR. To date we have had no response in regards the SAR despite the fact of putting a read receipt on the email, VCS have failed to read it - would it be wise to send another??
I have attached a first attempt draft at defence and would be grateful if any forum members would kindly take a read through and advise on what would need amending/altering. I have read through documents that I have referred to (PoFA, Civil Procedure Rule and Civil Practice Direction) but can only hope that I have interpreted them correctly - and apologise in advance if I haven't and indeed if I have duplicated information - it gets rather confusing. So here goes (obviously headings/dates etc etc will need to be formally corrected once I have a final draft. This needs to be submitted by 23rd JULY but would really hope to get it submitted by the weekend. Thanks again to everybody

FIRST DRAFT – VCS (XX/XX/2015)

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was on xx/xx/2015 parked on a public road leading to xxxxx. This does not meet the definition of 'relevant land' within the meaning set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3. The Defendants vehicle was not parked at the location claimed by the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant has no cause of action. Furthermore, where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked is public land, over which the Claimant is unable to demonstrate any standing. Evidence of this will be provided in due course.

4. The place of the alleged transgression is given as "restricted area in a privately owned car park at xxx "which contains several registered parcels of land as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxx was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxx; These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of this claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7. 5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. The fact that this is not 'relevant land' means that a registered keeper cannot be held liable under the POFA and there is no alternative rule of Law by which a registered keeper can be pursued, in the absence of evidence regarding the identity of the driver.

7. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver and as such, the Defendant believes that his personal details, have in this instance, been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant.

8. 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 and/or Agent, to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. VCS are a subsidiary company of Excel and as such I do not believe that VCS have the due authority to do so.

9. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as Practice Direction 16 7.5. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate at xxxx as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice A 7.1 which states that If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have written authorisation from the Landowner and/or their appointed Agent. The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the Landowner and/or their appointed agent requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 Section 4.5 states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper of £100. This claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, along with an additional £25 described as Court fee, totaling £185. This must be regarded as disingenuous and disproportionate and can only be viewed in the manner that this is an attempt at double recovery.

11. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font, which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily, notwithstanding that it is obscured by overgrowth at the entrance of XXX. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract, failing to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner for any person reading them.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true

upstanding

I had meant to include in my defence some how the information shared fom Egbert Nob

t doesn't really matter who the landowner contracted with, or what information is provided in response to the SAR. It's a matter of contract (or lack of) between the PPC and the motorist. Here is the argument that should be used:

The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. This fact can be confirmed by reference to the images contained in the Claimant’s bundle. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. VCS were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it.

Coupon-mad

UPDATE Having spent the last few days trying to do more research I have been able to get confirmation from the Land Registry that the road we were parked on does indeed belong to the Council and therefore does not meet the definition of 'relevant land'- I have purchased copy of such from LR.

Good.

Search the forum for Kent complaint Local Ombudsman and read the report and links where we've explained why Councils can't operate their land as if it were private land.

And yes, add the para you just mentioned, about the signs being from Excel.

Snakes_Belly

VCS are a subsidiary company of Excel and as such I do not believe that VCS have the due authority to do so.

Not sure if VCS are an actual subsidiary of Excel. They are owned by the same people but are separate legal entities.

There are now cases in relation to the fake add on's which may be persuasive.

I don't know if any of these VCS 2015 claims have been heard in court yet. This could just be a try on as they are usually quicker off the mark than this.