County Court (VCS) Residential PCN

THX-1-1-3-8

Been away for a week with work however ive already started writing my defense.... ill upload here shortly.

So far I have

SAR'd VCS - No response as of yet.
Sent an email and letter to VCS confirming my address directly to data controller - Unanswered & Unopened according to tracking app.

Sent a letter to the court confirming my address is different and to update my address for service - No response but will talk to court tomorrow.

Sent a letter to the solicitors of VCS (DCB Legal( confirming my address is different and to update my address for service - Unanswered.

Is it worth doing a SAR on DCB? Ive also asked for a copy of evidence they will rely on in court - no response.

Am I missing anything beyond submitting my defense at this point in time?

THX-1-1-3-8

Hi all, here is my initial draft defence. Id really appreciate some input

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

-and-

XXXXXXXX


DEFENCE


Preliminary


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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on XX/YY/ZZZZ. The Claimant further states in the Particulars that the “PCN” details are XX/YY/ZZZ VCSREFX. These details are contradictory to the Claimant’s own documentation which is referenced VCSREFX, which makes no reference to any contravention on the given date of XX/YY/ZZZZ.

2.1 The Notice To Keeper sent to the Defendant by the Claimant and referenced in the Particulars Of Claim by the Claimant was printed 3 months before the date of the alleged contractual breach. The Claimant has therefore brought forward a claim where the Particulars Of Claim are in incorrect by the Claimants own admission. No breach of contract, in place or otherwise, is possible based on the Claimants Particulars and therefore no debt can exist.The Defendant avers that The Claimant has no valid basis to bring forth this action. The court is invited to strike it out.

3. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on XX/YY/ZZZZ. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper' which indicates 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, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

4. 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.

Background

5. The Defendant admits that he was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark (REG) which is the subject of these proceedings.

6. The Defendant is unable to recall if vehicle (REG) was at the material location listed in the Particulars of Claim on the Claimants specified date. This is due to the “everyday” occurrence of the event and significant passage of time since the given date, which is over 3 years. The claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle was present at the time claimed in the Particulars.

7. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

7.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

7.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
7.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other
tort; and
7.2.2. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to
transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

7.3 It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements and the Claimant is put to strict proof that they have complied with Schedule 4 POFA

7.4 To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of Parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

Defence - Primacy of Contract

8. The Particulars refer to the material location as XXXXXX. The Defendant held legal title under the terms of an assured short hold tenancy agreement, to Apartment No. XXX at that location. This lease was valid from XX/XX/XX to XX/XX/XXX.

9. The specified location of XXXX relates both to a Quayside area and cobbled road. The road has limited access and is marked as private land belonging to a third party. Access is controlled by an electronic barrier, which is closed unless a vehicle is entering the area. It is an unmarked road servicing the quayside and several mixed-use buildings which have no defined parking bays or allocated parking but is a general area for residents of XXXXX for parking and access. Entry to the area with a vehicle for access or parking is by means of a key fob and remote, of a type only issued to residents or lease holders on site. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. The Defendant was provided with a Fob to control the barrier upon entering into the lease for the property.

9.1. There are no terms within the lease for the residence requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

9.2. The lease stipulates that the lessees are only bound to a Headlease where one is appended to the lease. The Defendant has obtained a copy of the lease which confirms no Headlease to be present. The Defendant therefore cannot be bound by terms not contained within the lease.

10. The presence of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

11. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' to be at the given location. The Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.


Alternative Defence – Failure to set out clear terms (Signage)

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the de facto authorisation already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

13. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

13.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage stated in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate and therefore cannot constitute the establishment of fair terms.

13.2 The signage at the specified location did not and still does not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was and is signatory. Specifically, the Claimant is in breach of Part E Schedule 1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording, text size, physical condition and illumination to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

Additional Defence

14 .It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

15. 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.

16. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. Despite this the Claimant has claimed for £273.40. the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process and an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

17. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

18. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs and potential loss of earnings in dealing with this matter.

19. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

THX-1-1-3-8

In addition im at a loss as to what to do about arguing about a "permit".

The signage at the location makes mention of permits. I can prove I held a valid permit at the time of the PCN but unsure if this undermines my defense elsewhere..

THX-1-1-3-8

Going to edit this and make it more concise I think.

THX-1-1-3-8

So VCS have shared my SAR information with a complete stranger.

Yesterday a fellow MSE forum member contacted me online – by name – as they had received all of my SAR information from VCS alongside all of their own documentation. Ive still had nothing from VCS and my emails sent directly to the data controller are still unread.

Ive contacted VCS by letter to report the data breach, ive also contacted the ICO to launch a complaint. Having had separate if a bit limited legal advice today im not sure wheter I should let the county court settle costs for the data breach or to launch a separate claim.

VCS sent an email to the fellow MSE member which states “ Photographic evidence and data is held on file in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement of a Parking Charge. We comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the General Data Protection Regulations to uphold your rights to Privacy.” In the same email all of my data held by VCS is present. YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP. Sufficient enough for him to contact me directly through social media.

Ive reported their activity to the ICO.

Not only have they obtained my data from the DVLA fraudulently but they have sharing it without any due care and attention.

The best part about it is, one of the images they’ve sent out as proof of breach shows what appears to be a VCS permit in my windscreen!

In other news ive seen the submitted a lightly revised version of my defence above and received the N180 with the expected requests – my local court and the local court for VCS is the same so should be rather entertaining!

Castle

THX-1-1-3-8 wrote: »

[
Ive contacted VCS by letter to report the data breach, ive also contacted the ICO to launch a complaint. Having had separate if a bit limited legal advice today im not sure wheter I should let the county court settle costs for the data breach or to launch a separate claim.

You should probably wait until the ICO confirms the data breach and then issue a separate claim.

Unless you've made a counterclaim when you filed your defence the county court won't be able to "settle costs". Also, there's no guarantee that VCS won't discontinue before the court hearing.

THX-1-1-3-8

Aye, threads advise against counterclaim so I did not do that - however theres lots of threads still discussing costs and that theyve been awarded.

Am I right in thinking even though there is no counterclaim I can list my costs for attending court, research etc.

nosferatu1001

Yes, of course
COsts have nothing to do with a counterclaim.

THX-1-1-3-8

I've received the SAR response in writing now from VCS to the correct address.

The date on their SAR is 2 days before they received the letter and they apparently wrote their response 1 day before I actually wrote and sent said letter.

Impressive time traveling there.

Coupon-mad

Wow, you must make their rep squirm to explain that in front of a Judge!