Please help- Please help !! PCN from Vehicle control services ltd

SoJacob

Coupon-mad said:

Do show us your draft bundle again, for comments.

Argh! my head is like spinning all day long. Problems after problems recently. Any specific pictures I should be getting? Also, what are other evidence should I present? 

Coupon-mad

I don't think you need lots of photos, just needing to review what you have again,

SoJacob

Hi I hope you are all well.

I read this statement  'Private parking companies might also be responsible for other aspects of managing parking-related access to controlled land, for example enforcing “no-stopping” restrictions on roads within airports.' from [Withdrawn] Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

It is a withdrawn guidance. Any idea which one the parking companies should be following? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, the one from their Trade Body. In the case of VCS, that's the IPC Code of Practice, for what it's worth (not much)!

SoJacob

HH

Hi All, 

Please see the below WS, I have done this from referring to few WS from the MSE. Please let me know if there is anything I need to delete or add? 

Thank you. 

 

1.      I am xxxx xxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.    In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

3.    I live local to Southend airport. My husband had knee injury who was/is unable to walk long distances (EXHIBIT 01). Therefore, I dropped and picked him up from Southend airport rail station on multiple occasions. I remained in the car and according to the timestamps the car stopped for only seconds. I received 3 PCNs (EXHIBIT 02,03,04) and according to the evidence (EXHIBIT 05) the car stopped to drop off passenger in a shop entrance where there is no red line.

4.    Reason for stopping should be considered. The vehicle stopped for only seconds according to the timestamps. The International Parking Community (IPC), of which the claimant is an operator, details a grace period in their code of practice (Part B, section 15). Part B, Section 15.1 states “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”

5.    Schedule 4 of PoFA allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”, (EXHIBIT 06).   The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ……..on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”  

6.    The road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988, (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”, (EXHIBIT 07).  It is also subject to the Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980 (EXHIBIT 08).   Schedule 4, of PoFA therefore, does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges

7.    Furthermore, Section C of the NTK (EXHIBIT 09) states that notification of driver/hirer/keeper details must be made within 28 days of the Issue Date (posted).  Paragraph 9(f) of PoFA Schedule 4 states that the response period is “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given” and paragraph 9(6) states the “given” date for a “notice sent by post is to be presumed, …… to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted;”.   As such, the Claimant’s NTK does not meet the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 (EXHIBIT 10) so they do not have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle

8.    The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”.  No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.  (EXHIBIT 11)

9.    Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

10.  PoFA  Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) (EXHIBIT 12) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the NTK which in this case is £100

11.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (EXHIBIT 13). 

12.  Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio  (EXHIBIT 14).  I am of the opinion that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)  (EXHIBIT 13) 

13.  The Claimant has not provided evidence that the landowner has given them the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation

14.  The Claimant has failed to provide details of the alleged signage upon which they are relying to form a contract with the driver and neither have they demonstrated that it is appropriately positioned to allow all drivers to read and understand the terms of the alleged agreement

15.  I would also question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”.   The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration in the absence of which no contract exists

1505grandad

"Therefore, I dropped and picked him up from Southend airport rail station on multiple occasions."
As above you have admitted being driver so POFA is not applicable.
".......and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.......

SoJacob

1505grandad said:

"Therefore, I dropped and picked him up from Southend airport rail station on multiple occasions."
As above you have admitted being driver so POFA is not applicable.
".......and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.......

I have admitted this in my defence. 

Coupon-mad

OK, quite right in your case. So you need to remove stuff about the POFA 2012 and sentences like:  ".......and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges......."

KeithP

SoJacob said:

1505grandad said:

"Therefore, I dropped and picked him up from Southend airport rail station on multiple occasions."
As above you have admitted being driver so POFA is not applicable.
".......and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charges.......

I have admitted this in my defence. 

Then what's the relevance of all that POFA stuff in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 10?

SoJacob

Thank you. I have removed points as advice. Any further changes or points to be added? 

1.      I am xxxx xxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.    In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

3.    I live local to Southend airport. My husband had knee injury who was/is unable to walk long distances (EXHIBIT 01). Therefore, I dropped and picked him up from Southend airport rail station on multiple occasions. I remained in the car and according to the timestamps the car stopped for only seconds. I received 3 PCNs (EXHIBIT 02,03,04) and according to the evidence (EXHIBIT 05) the car stopped to drop off passenger in a shop entrance where there is no red line.

4.    Reason for stopping should be considered. The vehicle stopped for only seconds according to the timestamps. The International Parking Community (IPC), of which the claimant is an operator, details a grace period in their code of practice (Part B, section 15). Part B, Section 15.1 states “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”

5.    The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”.  No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.  (EXHIBIT 06)

 6.    Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

 7.    Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 (EXHIBIT 07).  

8.    Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio  (EXHIBIT 08).  I am of the opinion that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)  (EXHIBIT 09)  

9.    The Claimant has not provided evidence that the landowner has given them the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation 

10.  The Claimant has failed to provide details of the alleged signage upon which they are relying to form a contract with the driver and neither have they demonstrated that it is appropriately positioned to allow all drivers to read and understand the terms of the alleged agreement 

11.  I would also question the existence of the alleged contract which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”.   The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration in the absence of which no contract exists