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

Coupon-mad

Sadly, it also has the effect of helping a PPC get their ducks in a row.

beamerguy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sadly, it also has the effect of helping a PPC get their ducks in a row.

I know, crazy business but, how many ducks can you buy for £60 ?

Garyswork2

So it's the day before the last day to receive the Claimants WS. However, I jumped first and posted my WS to the court this morning as I didn't want to miss my deadline.

As they sent me their by email, I'm getting ready to reply to their email with mine.

Here's the claimant WS:-









Exhibit JB2, showing the small print they're using to justify extra charges.

Coupon-mad

@ point 15 they say they are pursuing you as the keeper.

But VCS have never complied with the POFA and in 2016 I am pretty sure they used the wording that they were 'assuming the keeper was the driver' (i.e. not transferring liability as per 9(2)f of the POFA, then, because there is no 9(2)f in their NTK).

Your WS covered the added £60 and the Southampton case, didn't it?

Are you defending as keeper, only? Or not...

Garyswork2

This one, among many others:-

11.5.3. An N244 application from BW Legal led to a Southampton hearing regarding those claims (effectively being treated as test cases for that court circuit regarding the single fact that the claims were inflated, and thus tainted and an abuse of process). The parking firm sought to oppose the striking out of £160 PCN claims, but their barrister's arguments failed and the Defendants successfully cited the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the paragraph 71 duty of the court to apply the 'test of fairness' to a consumer notice (a statutory duty that courts must consider in all consumer contract cases, whether a consumer raises the issue earlier or even if not raised at all).

I'm defending as the Keeper. I have never entertained the notion that I may have been the driver. In fact my WS states that I would not be in a position to answer if pressed as the NTK was 3.5 years ago and I'm not the only insured driver.

Garyswork2

DCBL have also confirmed to the court in writing that they will not attend.

These are the points I would question if able to in court:-

7. Interesting that they admit it is essential to comply with the ATA CoP. Shame they didn't comply with the IPC Part C 5.1(m) 14 day NTK.

8. (ref Exhibit JB5 - the initial PCN). I'm really unimpressed that they quote "PCN issue date 28/07/2016" as that's wrong. That was the Contravention date. The Issue date was in fact 22/08/2016 as shown on the PCN which they also submitted as Exhibit JB5.

11. (Exhibit JB2) "The signs formed the contract with the DRIVER". Exactly, I'm the RK!

12. (Exhibit JB3) Again, "the DRIVER accepted the contract". I'm only the RK!

15. (Exhibit JB5 is the PCN & Final Reminder) Claimant requests RK details re pursuant to Schedule 4 POFA12.
PCN is sent to RK in accordance of Para 9.
Defendant is persued as the keeper.
All this mention of admitting that I'm the keeper, but they still say I have to prove that I'm not the driver?

16. VCS believes Defendant was driver. This is a presumption, surely not in law?
Also, in point 15 they acknowledge that I am being pursued as the Keeper, so is the driver now irrelevant?

17. In VCS letter dated 28/10/16 they refused my appeal. I was not aware that I had to appeal again, but I did reply to every letter stating that I did not recognise the charge as they were out of time and am satisfied that the charge is unenforceable.

18. iv. (Exhibit JB6) Yes I spelt my name wrong on my invoice to them as I had read it that way so many times in their letters.
This mistake was was based on a "d" looking like an "n" in my signature, but the Claimant and the legal reps all failed to pick this up in all future correspondence from me, including naming me in their own Witness Statement when picking up on the typo that they are now trying to use in their defence.

18. v. As per my comments to their points 11 and 12. The Defendant was NOT on notice of the T&Cs when entering the land, the driver was!

18. vi. I do question the delay during the 30 months of silence between their Final Reminder dated 22/11/16 and 1st contact from DCBL dated 28/06/19. Especially as the calculated debt includes interest accrued during that time.

20. THE IPC CoP quotes on p33 "It is suggested the maximum parking charge should be: £100.
Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where
appropriate on the signage". This could be the signage that the driver was privy to, not the Keeper.

21. As per point 20, Claimant is relying on ATA guidelines (IPC CoP p33) on signage that a keeper who was not present would not have seen.

22. is a pointless repeat of points 20 and 21.

23. Cites a case to add costs of contractual indemnity. Also claiming that I was on notice that the outstanding amount may increase. Does this apply if I was not the driver and could therefore not have seen the signage?

24. I argue that the time taken to refuse an appeal based on pointing out their errors re an out of time NTK and sending me pre formatted letters has minimal costs.
Compounded by the fact that their website confirms that that they are Parking Enforcement specialists. Therefore to suggest that debt recovery is not a usual part of their business is misleading the court to believe that this case is anything other than standard practice for them.

25. I assume they're moaning about being accused of sending Roboclaims. How do I defend this?

Coupon-mad

Chaplair v Kumari is a completely irrelevant case about costs arising in a signed lease, as already discussed on other threads.

At Southampton, in CEC16's case, BW Legal/Britannia's barrister slapped that transcript on the table and said he was going to rely on it. I said we hadn't been served a copy but I added ''no worries, I am familiar with the case''.

He then didn't mention it at all! Haha, I think he knew their case was drivel.

16. VCS believes Defendant was driver. This is a presumption, surely not in law?

Your summary of what you intend to say about their evidence is good. Make sure as well as your papers already filed & served, you also take Henry Greenslade's words about UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY from the POPLA Annual Report 2015, and a copy (screenshot?) of your insurance from the material date, showing more than one driver in case the Judge leans towards wanting to presume the same as VCS.

Garyswork2

Thanks again.
I've just printed some info about Chaplair v Kumari which shows the case is relevant to landlords and bears no relevance to parking cases, which I will add to my comments to read out, along with a printed transcript of Henry Greenslade's words about keeper liability.

I searched high & low for an insurance Doc covering the date with no luck, but have a copy of the following years certificate dated 6 months later, confirming the 2 of us are named on the policy.

KeithP

Garyswork2 wrote: »

I searched high & low for an insurance Doc covering the date with no luck, but have a copy of the following years certificate dated 6 months later, confirming the 2 of us are named on the policy.

For the cost of a phone call your insurers might send you a copy.

Garyswork2

KeithP wrote: »

For the cost of a phone call your insurers might send you a copy.

It's more a case of knowing who the insurance was with. The 2017 Doc was with Tesco so I'll try them first. Failing that I'll ask them if they have a copy of my NCD that I sent.