VCS issued PCN after 25 days, I told them where to stick it, now DCB Legal have sent me an LBC

Garyswork2

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Why are you quoting the IPC code in respect of the 14 day out of time point? Surely the POFA is a much stronger reference . In fact, use both!

Two reasons.
1. VCS and the IPC claim that their own code of practice is to be used where POFA2012 is not relied upon.
2. To highlight the incompetence & irony of the response from VCS suggesting that they adhere to the IPC CoP.

As you say though, no harm in using both.
Edited defence point 6 as below.

6. The PCN was issued out of time.
I refer to POFA2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 9.5 and the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part C 5.1(m), highlighting that, ”the Notice to Keeper must given to be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.
In the claimants’ letter to the defendant dated 21st Sept 2016, the claimant confirms that they are “established members of the Independent Parking Community“ and that they adhere to their CoP for parking on private land, yet the PCN was issued 25 days after the alleged offence.

KeithP

Looks like VCS don't know the name of their trade association...

they are “established members of the [STRIKE]Independent[/STRIKE] International Parking Community“

Fruitcake

A few suggestions.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with the landowner nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).


6. The PCN was issued out of time.
I refer to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, paragraphs 9.4 and 9.5 and the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) Part C 5.1(m), highlighting that for keeper liability to apply, ”the Notice to Keeper must [STRIKE]given to[/STRIKE] be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.
In the claimants’ letter to the defendant dated 21st Sept 2016, the claimant confirms that they are “established members of the *Independent* Parking Community“ and that they adhere to their CoP for parking on private land, yet the PCN was issued 25 days after the alleged [STRIKE]offence [/STRIKE] event, thus failing both the strict requirements of both the PoFA 2012 and the IPC CoP.

*Note that the IPC has not used this name since 2016 when it became the International Parking Community*

8. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is an attempt at double recovery not allowed under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 and is an abuse or process.

(You need to refer to the three or more cases thrown out by judges as per beamerguy's thread entitled "Abuse of Process".)

9. It is submitted that the claim falsely includes interest dating back to 2016. The claimant did not bring the case to claim until 5/8/19 and is attempting to claim interest for those 3 years on the inflated claim for damages as mentioned in statement 18.

( I suggest you look up the Bank of England interest rates for the last few years as well. I'm quite sure it has been nowhere near 8%.)

Garyswork2

KeithP wrote: »

Looks like VCS don't know the name of their trade association...

they are “established members of the [STRIKE]Independent[/STRIKE] International Parking Community“

Well spotted. It is also shown in the official logo on the letters from VCS.

Fruitcake wrote: »

A few suggestions.

3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract with the landowner nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

Thanks. Amended.

Fruitcake wrote: »

6. The PCN was issued out of time.
I refer to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 Schedule 4, paragraphs 9.4 and 9.5 and the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice (CoP) Part C 5.1(m), highlighting that for keeper liability to apply, ”the Notice to Keeper must [STRIKE]given to[/STRIKE] be received by the keeper within 14 days beginning the day after the specified period of parking.
In the claimants’ letter to the defendant dated 21st Sept 2016, the claimant confirms that they are “established members of the *Independent* Parking Community“ and that they adhere to their CoP for parking on private land, yet the PCN was issued 25 days after the alleged [STRIKE]offence [/STRIKE] event, thus failing both the strict requirements of both the PoFA 2012 and the IPC CoP.

*Note that the IPC has not used this name since 2016 when it became the International Parking Community*

Amended.

Fruitcake wrote: »

8. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is an attempt at double recovery not allowed under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 and is an abuse or process.

(You need to refer to the three or more cases thrown out by judges as per beamerguy's thread entitled "Abuse of Process".)

I've copied Coupon-Mad's post #20 which will be submitted along with my defence.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75917866#Comment_75917866

Fruitcake wrote: »

9. It is submitted that the claim falsely includes interest dating back to 2016. The claimant did not bring the case to claim until 5/8/19 and is attempting to claim interest for those 3 years on the inflated claim for damages as mentioned in statement 18.

( I suggest you look up the Bank of England interest rates for the last few years as well. I'm quite sure it has been nowhere near 8%.)

This is what the interest rates were for the last 3 years.
0.25% for 2016,
0.50% for FY2017
0.75% for FY2018.

I could offer this as an attempt by the claimant to further profiteer from the claim?

waamo

The interest rate is set in law for court claims. Whilst ridiculously high I don't see any mileage in challenging it.

Garyswork2

waamo wrote: »

The interest rate is set in law for court claims. Whilst ridiculously high I don't see any mileage in challenging it.

Is it though?
I was looking at paragraph 1 thinking that the court deems what is fit.

County Courts Act 1984
Section 69 Power to award interest on debts and damages.
(1)Subject to [F1rules of court], in proceedings (whenever instituted) before [F2the county court] for the recovery of a debt or damages there may be included in any sum for which judgment is given simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt or damages in respect of which judgment is given, or payment is made before judgment, for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and—
(a)in the case of any sum paid before judgment, the date of the payment; and
(b)in the case of the sum for which judgment is given, the date of the judgment.
(2)In relation to a judgment given for damages for personal injuries or death which exceed £200 subsection (1) shall have effect—
(a)with the substitution of “shall be included” for “may be included”; and
(b)with the addition of “unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons to the contrary” after “given”, where first occurring.
(3)Subject to [F1rules of court], where—
(a)there are proceedings (whenever instituted) before [F2the county court] for the recovery of a debt; and
(b)the defendant pays the whole debt to the plaintiff (otherwise than in pursuance of a judgment in the proceedings),the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff simple interest, at such rate as the court thinks fit or as may be prescribed, on all or any part of the debt for all or any part of the period between the date when the cause of action arose and the date of the payment.
(4)Interest in respect of a debt shall not be awarded under this section for a period during which, for whatever reason, interest on the debt already runs.
(5)Interest under this section may be calculated at different rates in respect of different periods.
(6)In this section “plaintiff” means the person seeking the debt or damages and “defendant” means the person from whom the plaintiff seeks the debt or damages and “personal injuries” includes any disease and any impairment of a person’s physical or mental condition.
(7)Nothing in this section affects the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exchange.
[F3(8)In determining whether the amount of any debt or damages exceeds that prescribed by or under any enactment, no account shall be taken of any interest payable by virtue of this section except where express provision to the contrary is made by or under that or any other enactment.]

KeithP

Yes, and I thought that 'law' (sorry can't find it now) was that interest could be charged at BoE rate plus 8%.

Garyswork2

KeithP wrote: »

Yes, and I thought that 'law' (sorry can't find it now) was that interest could be charged at BoE rate plus 8%.

You may be right as a quick Google came back with a load of sites quoting 8% + BoE base rate.
Perhaps I should stick to defence 9 where the claimant has added interest for the 3 years that they sat on their hands for.

Umkomaas

Garyswork2 wrote: »

You may be right as a quick Google came back with a load of sites quoting 8% + BoE base rate.
Perhaps I should stick to defence 9 where the claimant has added interest for the 3 years that they sat on their hands for.

A further point - are they adding it to any 'add ons' that they haven't even incurred or paid?

Garyswork2

Umkomaas wrote: »

A further point - are they adding it to any 'add ons' that they haven't even incurred or paid?

Yes, having done the maths their 3 years interest is also on the fake £60 that they added 3 years after the event. I would call it a fraudulent claim of interest, but I'm not confident in bringing that word in to court.
Hopefully my defence 8 & 9 cover this.

8. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is an attempt at double recovery not allowed under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 and is an abuse or process.

9. It is submitted that the claim falsely includes interest dating back to 2016. The claimant did not bring the case to claim until 5/8/19 and is attempting to claim interest for those 3 years on the inflated claim for damages as mentioned in statement 8.