VCS MCOL Darlington, Co. Durham

Jeff_Wode

Post #13 shows the PCN: i would really appreciate advice on whether or not the defence should pursue the "invalid ticket" line: nb: The "Driver Present Yes/No" has not been circled. Contravention 88 does not appear to exist. The site number is crossed out (and a DIFFERENT site number quoted in subsequent correspondance) "P & D ticket number" has not been filled in, even though it was clearly visible on the reverse of the ticket.

KeithP

http://i63.tinypic.com/5ltgcl.jpg

Quentin

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use posts in your thread against you in Court

Together with that image and other information that you have posted in this thread the PPC will be able to identify you

also throughout here you are advised never to reveal the driver

You need to edit your OP to remove details of who was driving

Jeff_Wode

Thank you - OP edited - hopefully it is suitable now. Key details have been blanked from the PCN.

Coupon-mad

Jeff_Wode wrote: »

I`m trying to post a picture of my PCN (with the key details blanked out) so the forum can advise me on whether or not there`s any mileage in claiming the PCN is invalid due to being spoiled, confusing and incomplete - I`m not sure how to upload pictures to this thread from a computer - any help would be appreciated, thanks

The PCN is OK and doesn't mean much. At least it's a proper one, not a red card fake one VCS sometimes use.

You need to be looking at the first letter, the Notice to Keeper (NTK), to see the fact that they had wording in 2015 'assuming' the keeper is the driver, which you will know from your reading is not the statutory 8(2)f of Schedule 4 of the POFA wording that can hold a keeper liable.

Compare that para of the POFA with your NTK and you will see what I mean.

Basically a day pass was purchased and the ticket flipped over.

OK so start with any2015 permit defence you find, given there are DOZENS of VCS 2015 cases to read here right now for the sake of one search!

THEN, search for:

fluttering ticket defence true

and combine the two.

Jeff_Wode

Thank you - I will begin looking at 2015 permit defences and search Fluttering Ticket Cases True - regarding my NTK; only 3 pieces of correspondence have been received by VCS and they contain paragraphs which indicate they have had personal attention to my case (as opposed to generic templates). Two were received in the months following the receipt of the PCN and one LBC in June. There was some telephone communication too (late 2015/early 2016). Nothing has been received from VCS that says "Notice to Keeper" or which uses the wording you described..

Jeff_Wode

Ok, this is how it`s shaping up so far - it`s not great but I feel I need to be showing the Forum something as I only have a few days left (Monday 29th July at 4pm) to get this in and, as I was advised, I don`t want to leave it `til the day of...


[FONT=&quot]1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

A ticket was paid for and displayed so all details could be seen. At some point over the next four hours, said ticket became dislodged, presumably by a gust of wind through the vents. The Defendant has no knowledge of exactly when the ticket flipped over or why. The ticket gave the Defendant a licence to park for the entire day, from XTime- X time on X/11/2015, covering the time and date relating to the disputed claim. The ticket was displayed which will be demonstrated by the Claimant’s own evidence.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in the material place displaying a valid ticket “in windscreen.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The ticket had no means of affixing it and was made of flimsy material. It is not known whether the ticket was dislodged by a gust of wind through the vents or the Claimant's patrol officer leaning across the car and dislodging it, as clamper firms used to do. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.4 The Defendant driver knows and can attest to the fact the car was parked with the ticket properly displayed, when it was left.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. In the Particulars of Claim (POC), the claimant states that the “terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance.” The defendant asserts that there was no signage of any kind at the entrance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
5. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

10. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

11. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

13 According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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 pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

17. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

18. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would like to add this somewhere, but if it is strongly recommended by the Forum that I do not, then I won`t:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]5. Incomplete/spoiled/confusing Parking Charge Notice (PCN)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.1 The PCN issued by the claimant is incomplete and inaccurate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.2 The PCN appears to indicate a “Contravention Code” which appears to be non-existent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.3 Two site numbers are indicated on the PCN. One appears to be crossed out. The defendant therefore questions the validity of said PCN.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5.4 Both site numbers differ from the site number quoted in subsequent correspondence from the claimant to the defendant.[/FONT]

Le_Kirk

You need to change your point 15 to make it clear that you are quoting the other District Judges and not making an order/instruction to the court.

Jeff_Wode

Noted, thank you - I will make sure that`s done. I`m now looking at the part of the claim where VCS say they want to claim "interest" as part of this £160. Surely they can`t do this if they hadn`t contacted me for 3 + years? I thought I read about this on another thread but can`t seem to locate it..

KeithP

Jeff_Wode wrote: »

I`m now looking at the part of the claim where VCS say they want to claim "interest" as part of this £160. Surely they can`t do this if they hadn`t contacted me for 3 + years?

VCS will be alleging that by parking the driver agreed to the terms on the signs and that those terms form the contract between the driver and VCS. Do those signs say that 'the driver agrees to pay the sum due within 28 days', or words to that effect?

If so, then they will say that interest is due on the alleged debt after those 28 days have passed.