PCN County Court Claim

Jamboree_Bag

nosferatu1001 said:

Your witness statement contains EVERYTHING. Not just one point. 

It'll be interesting to see if they claim landholder authority...

VCS has included a "contract" between them and the landowner in their notice of evidence and an aerial photo - funnily enough, with other cars parked outside of the "protected area" exactly in the area where mine was parked! - Couldn't make it up! (Well they have!)
It's obviously not a contract with a local authority!

nosferatu1001

Go in hard on that

theyre deliberately misleading the court and you. 

Jamboree_Bag

Here's the 1st draft  (attempt) of my WS - No offence taken if  I need to add, delete, re-phrase - Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks 

Jamboree_Bag

1. I ******************* of ************** am the defendant to whom this claim is made.  I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I will refer to this bundle as CJ1

3. On the material date I parked my car as normal in a parking space on ***********Street********* on ****************.

 I work within the *********************** and the rear door of my workplace opens out into the ********************************** service yard.

My employment began there in November 2018 and after observing that the service yard had restricted parking, I endeavoured to talk to one of the Parking Attendants who confirmed he managed the parking within the service yard, controlled by Vehicle Control Services.

4 The  Parking Attendant advised me that I would not receive a ticket from him on that stretch of land as it was not part of the private land, service yard and that it “belonged to the Council”. 

The stretch of land is separated from the ********************* Service Yard with metal bollards, a line in narrow paving and a different coloured tarmac that  adjoins ********** Street.

Jamboree_Bag

So I continued to park on the road, whilst I was at work, 5 days a week, if there was a space available. I had never received a PCN or any other parking fine on the road until April 2019.

5 - On April 15 2019. I returned to my car, in order to retrieve a bag of donations destined for a nearby charity shop  Upon approaching my car I found a cheap red and black envelope/sleeve stuck to my windscreen with the statement ,“ THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE” on the front.

6 - I have had all sorts of flyers and leaflets tucked under my windscreen wipers during my 35 years of driving. Because the red and black plastic envelope stated “ THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”*****EX******** and as to the best of my knowledge I was parked on a public highway, I took it as verbatim, removed it from my windscreen, found a bin on the street and promptly disposed of it.

7-  Around 24 April 2019, after obtaining my personal data from DVLC ,I received a combined PCN (Parking Charge Notice) and NKT (Notice to Keeper) from Vehicle Control Services  (from now on abbreviated to VCS) in the post. ********EX********* that asked for a payment of £100

8- After spending some time researching issues and complaints surrounding Private Parking Companies, especially VCS and believing that I had been parked on the public highway, I decided to decline the claimants “appeal” service through an online portal (My Parking Charge)which has been described on some forums as a “kangaroo court”.

9- Approximately one month later I received a “FINAL REMINDER” document from Vehicle Control Services for the amount of £100, then a letter dated 10 June 2019 a “DEMAND FOR PAYMENT” of £160. Around 25 days later a “FINAL DEMAND” was received demanding £160.

10- I received a “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM” in July 2020 threatening court action and asking for more personal data including disclosure of my private finances.

THE CLAIMANT HAS NO TITLE AND INTEREST.

11- The Claimant submits that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme and issue PCN’s (Claimant's exhibit YC1 Copy of Contact With Client) at **********************

The Claimant, however, has no authority to issue a PCN on this particular strip of land which has been confirmed as being a  public highway. Maintained at the public expense. 

Exhibit (confirmation email from highways agency inc photo)**************

I ADMIT TO NO BREACH OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

Jamboree_Bag

12- Even if I had parked on the private land managed by the Claimant, I was not given a 10 minutes grace period as specified in the claimant's witness statement, paragraph 34 “ A 10 minute grace period is also in operation……………..”

The first photograph of my car was taken at 09.13.24am YC2 (page 35) - The final photo was taken at 10.14.17am (YC2 page 54) I deduce that this equates to a grace period of 53 seconds, hardly a grace period of 10 minutes, however, I thank the Claimant for providing this evidence.

12 -  Referring to the claimants ‘production identified in YC1 - Site Information. The ‘Contract of Statement, Photographs of the car park, Signage Artwork and overhead of the car park are very relevant to this case. The claimants aerial photograph and the email from the Highways agency proves  the location my car was parked at the time. That is, parked on the public highway and on the other side of the claimants ‘Protected Area” (Red Line). I have included photographic evidence to confirm this ***************************

13 -  The photographs in the claimants bundle YC1- Site Information pages 28, 29, 30, 31,only show images of the large area of the service yard. This may be tantamount to seriously misleading the Court,  as my car was parked in a completely different place and not within this car park. The brickwork is a completely different colour to where my car was parked ***********

14 -  The Claimants photographs of a car within the service yard *********** show a completely different vehicle to my own. The make, model, colour are not my vehicle. The number plate is partially identified as ***********. The person in the photograph is not me. These photographs may serve to mislead the Court into believing that this is my car. It is not.

15 -  Photos in my site plan************** and the photos from the Claimant clearly show my car parked next to the metal  bollards and have a red brick backdrop *********Photos OF SITE******************* Which correspond exactly with the photographic evidence contained in the email from the Highways agency. IE: Parked on a public highway.

16 -  The stock photograph of the Claimants signage ***************** has no context - It does not prove where my vehicle was parked.

17 -  The claimant asserts there are 7 signs throughout the development.There are in fact 6. The sign shown on photo*********** which is next to the Public Highway does not exist. My photo********

18 - Even if the claimant's evidence is to be relied on, one cannot reasonably presume that the ‘Private Land’  and signage on the wall of the building extend to the road on the other side of the metal bollards. *********** photo

19 - Indeed, in any case,  just because one is parked near a ‘Parking Sign’ it does not mean that one is parked on ‘Private Land’. One wonders how many other parking charge notices have been issued to unsuspecting members of the public on this public land?

20 -I thank the claimant for photo 39 of 54 which clearly shows my car is parked on the public highway. This corresponds with my photo evidence from **********name******* the Highways agency who have confirmed that the strip of land is indeed a public highway.

Jamboree_Bag

21 -  The Claimant submits that they have had the authority to implement a parking scheme on the development and have provided a Contract of Authority  **************** The Claimant has no jurisdiction on the public highway where my vehicle was parked and where the alleged ‘offence’ took place. The provision of the Contract and the assertion of authority to ‘manage’ the land is deceitful and seems to serve to mislead the Court.

 THERE IS NO LIABILITY OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE CLAIMANT

22 - The claimant has stated that he has relied on clauses in the Protection of Freedoms act (POFA) Schedule 4 - Witness Statement para 28. The claimant has listed the paragraphs in his witness statement, paragraphs 42-65 and has cunningly claimed that the plastic red and black adhesive envelope he placed on my car windscreen was in fact a ‘card’ 

23 - There is no provision in POFA to attach a ‘card’ to a windscreen and I can only conclude that the cheap black and red plastic adhesive sleeve, referred to as card, was indeed what is actually, according to POFA, a “NOTICE TO DRIVER” or NTD. 

24 -  For expediency I have included a POFA flowchart regarding stating actions a Private Parking Company are permitted to take after a contravention is detected  **************** 

25 -   A landholder detects a parking contravention and places a ticket (a “notice to driver”), on the vehicle or gives it to the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. (The red and black sticky note) **************

26 -  If the ticket is paid within 28 days the matter is closed. The ticket was not paid as it was invalid.

27 - If the driver/keeper wishes to appeal against the ticket he/she must make representations to the landholder within 28 days of the date of the ticket. Details of how to make representations must be included on the ticket. The “ticket” was disposed of as it was disguised as a non ticket and was attached to my vehicle which was parked on a public highway.

28 -  If there is no response to ticket within 28 days of the alleged contravention, the landholder may apply to DVLA for registered keeper details under the reasonable cause provisions and send a notice to the registered keeper.  This was not adhered to as the SAR request was made to the DVLA on ********************* and the Notice to Keeper arrived 23 days prematurely ********************

29 -  The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as bye laws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.

Jamboree_Bag

30 - The “Protection of Freedoms act” Schedule 4 permits private parking companies to hold the vehicles’ keeper responsible for the parking charge, if certain conditions are met. This deceitful claimant requested and received my personal data from DVLC - None of those conditions were met, as I was parked on a public highway.

 31 - Parking on public land is managed by the local authority. Where it isn’t the Police are responsible instead. Parking tickets can only be issued by either a local authority parking attendant, a Police Officer or traffic warden. Private parking companies mimicking the aforementioned and who proceed to sue unsuspecting members of the public, are not.

Summary.

Whilst I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their lawful daily business have entered into some kind of illegal “contract” with them on a public highway. 

Nor do I appreciate the tactics of Vehicle Control Services who have sent me many harassing and distressing letters, making veiled threats towards my credit rating, which has been a foul intrusion into my life.

Whilst I can almost forgive an over zealous Parking Attendant who seems to have been ignorant to the extent of land which fell within his remit, I cannot accept any excuse why Vehicle Control Services have commenced litigation on this matter.

The Claimant had no legal basis to commence this claim. The Claimants own photographic  evidence shows that I was parked on a Public Highway and confirms that they have no claim on the land on which I was parked. I believe that with this evidence alone there has been an abuse of the litigation process. The misconduct of VCS in this case has been appalling.

The relentless and disgusting tac-tics used by Vehicle Control Services of unfounded threats of charges, damage to my credit rating, County Court Judgements, imagined contraventions, debt recovery, Court action, patronising debt advice, Court proceedings from Vehicle Control Services is abhorrent, inequitable and predatory. This kind of  behavior is bordering on immoral.

My personal data has been extracted from the DVLC  without warrant or my consent- This may have constituted a GDPR breach and I will endeavour to report the breach. I will also be contacting Trading Standards and the Claimant's own governing body the I.P.C, to report the Claimants vile  actions. 

If the ‘cut and paste Robo- Claim’ Vehicle Control Services used wasn’t so disgraceful, or had not caused me so much distress, it would be laughable. I have spent hundreds of hours wasting my precious time on research, defending my position, collecting evidence, documenting and recording.

Jamboree_Bag

***** I NEED TO ADD IN THAT THEIR SIGNAGE IS LIMITED TO PARKING FOR 1 HOUR**********

12- Even if I had parked on the private land managed by the Claimant, I was not given a 10 minutes grace period as specified in the claimant's witness statement, paragraph 34 “ A 10 minute grace period is also in operation……………..”

The first photograph of my car was taken at 09.13.24am YC2 (page 35) - The final photo was taken at 10.14.17am (YC2 page 54) I deduce that this equates to a grace period of 53 seconds, hardly a grace period of 10 minutes, however, I thank the Claimant for providing this evidence.

Fruitcake

I would leave out para 12 as it introduces doubt. "Even if I had parked..." could be interpreted as, "well I might have parked there."

With regards to the envelope left on the windscreen, the DVLA have said this is not permitted. 

You seem to have all the important parts covered.
You weren't parked in the area scammed by the scammers, here's the proof.
Therefore the alleged event didn't occur and my data was obtained unlawfully.

Have you considered making a counter claim and/or at least claiming for costs for unreasonable behaviour?