Defense for VCS by 12/11 - 19/11/20 VCS WON

56756756

Hi

I'm at the Witness Statement stage now, due to be submitted tomorrow. This is my current statement, any advice or suggestions for improvement?

I, [NAME], of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter, and will say as follows.

1. I work from the [WORKPLACE] where the car was parked outside of on the day of DATE.
2. Workers based in the [WORKPLACE] are provided access to open permits for parking in front the building.
3. Evidence of the permit in situ is provided as Exhibit A. However, the permit had subsequently fallen into the footwell by the time the parking officer inspected the vehicle.
4. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice, labelled "This is not a parking charge notice" (Exhibit , I supplied the Claimant with this evidence. However, they have decided to pursue this matter via litigation.
5. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in it's entirety and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.


Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

I have never seen such a sparse and short WS! You could lose, by using that.

OMG read a few on the forum by searching, you have missed EVERYTHING we normally include, have not pulled apart their WS, have not mentioned the false added £60, and you have not mentioned the signs, the landowner authority, and nor have you listed ANY evidence you are appending.

If it makes you a day late submitting your WS, take 24 hrs to read other VCS threads and learn fro them quickly - copy their WS style and evidence lists.

You also need a summary costs assessment or costs schedule.

56756756

Thanks for the response. I'm confused as to the advice given in some posts and used an example witness statement from the Newbies Thread and adapted that for myself. My understanding was to keep it short, highlight what you'll say and expand upon these points in the Skeleton which can be submitted 2-3 days before the court date.

I havn't received a witness statement from VCS yet and I have to deliver mine (physically) to the court today by 4 PM. I may scrap the costs thing, I just want them gone I don't particularly care to make up for the time lost. I also do not have a court date, the letter from the court saying instead that "upon compliance with...this order notice will be sent to all parties as to the time and date of the hearing and the length of time allocated to it."

Thanks for your time. Here is my revision...

----

I, [NAME], of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant in this matter and will say as follows.

1. I, [NAME], am the defendant in this case. I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

2. I am not liable to the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services (VCS), for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge, as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

4. I received a ‘Parking Charge Notice/Notice to Keeper’ from the Claimant dated 18th March 2019 (Exhibit A) stating a charge of £100 was being pursued for ‘parking in a restricted/prohibited area’. This was received 8 days after the ‘contravention’ date of 10th March 2019. The timing of VCS access to my personal data is a breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA, 2012) Schedule 4 (Exhibit and as such, I, as the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be held liable for the parking charge notice.

5. The Driving and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), via which VCS gained my personal details, clearly states POFA (2012) legislation in their document “Release of Information from DVLA Registers” namely that “Companies that issue windscreen notices to drivers can only apply for keeper information after 28 days if the parking charge remains unpaid. Companies have a further 28 days to contact the keeper. If these timescales are not met, the keeper liability powers do not apply”. As a result of VCS accessing my personal data within 6 days of the ‘Notice to Driver’ they have rendered their pursuit of me as the Registered Keeper invalid.

6. Further, this access to my personal information is also a breach of the Independent Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice (IPC, 2017, V.6). VCS is noted to be accredited by the IPC. VCS are in breach of a number of processes in the Code of Practice, namely Part C, Point 2.1 (g) “The Notice to Driver must…….explain that if the full amount of the charge is not paid within 28 days an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details to enable the charge to be enforced”. As stated in this Witness Statement the alleged contravention date (date car was photographed) was 10th March 2019 and as evidenced in VCS Subject Access Request my personal data was accessed through the DVLA on 18th March 2019. This is further evidence that VCS has not followed due process.

7. Visitors to [WORKPLACE], where the vehicle was parked, are provided access to open permits for parking in front of the building. Evidence of the permit in situ is provided as Exhibit C. However, the permit had subsequently fallen into the footwell by the time the parking officer inspected the vehicle.

8. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice, labelled "This is not a parking charge notice" (Exhibit D), I supplied the Claimant with this evidence. However, they have decided to pursue this matter via litigation.

9. 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. The Defendant did, however, follow the instructions to display a valid parking permit with reasonable care.

10. 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. The signage referring only to the disabled parking bays (Exhibit E).

11. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

12. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

13. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

14. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

15. I believe that the Claimant requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty charge. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge of £100. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice and now has the ‘Value’ of the PCN stated as £160. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that these costs were incurred. During the course of correspondence, the costs that the claimant was happy to receive as proportionate for the Parking Charge have altered from the original fee of £100 to a ‘discounted’ fee of £60, then to £160 for ‘additional costs’ incurred. There has been no explanation for the calculation of these fees and that of the £185 fee that is now being claimed other than the £25 court fee. The Defendant believes that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest as the defendant has not been provided sufficient information in regards to the contract.

16. 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 ‘debt recover costs’, for which no calculation or explanation is given and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. 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.

17. As of 3rd February 2020, the Defendant has not received a witness statement from the Claimant and therefore have no clear idea of the basis of the claim. When these are received from this Claimant it is the intention of the Defendant to file a Skeleton Argument.

18. I invite the court to dismiss this claim in its entirety and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.


Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Coupon-mad

8. Upon receipt of a parking charge notice, labelled "This is not a parking charge notice" (Exhibit D), I supplied the Claimant with this evidence. However, they have decided to pursue this matter via litigation.

Yay! Read the thread by adambuzz14, and attach Adam's transcript to your skeleton argument before the hearing, with your costs schedule.

I may scrap the costs thing,

Nope, you can file a costs schedule with a skeleton argument later.

This makes no sense as VCS didn't use a solicitor, and filed their own claim, yes?

14. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

But at least you say you are more or less complying with the directions deadline, which they have missed (are you taking, or have you today taken, a file in person to the court with this WS and evidence in it, with all pages numbered, and emailed it to VCS)?

56756756

It's over! I lost - they took £100 + £50 for court fees.

What went wrong?
The judge respected that I made a reasonable attempt in displaying my parking certificate but that it had subsequently fallen into the footwell was not sufficient and that the contract that I entered into with VCS via their signage meant I was liable for the charge if the parking inspector couldn't see it at the time.

He denied them the £60 added fee, though it was specified on the signs additional fees may be added for recovery he felt they, therefore, needed to state what the fee was instead of presenting a figure after the fact. Also, he denied them any interest as they didn't specifically outline the amount they were requesting in their claim.

Just glad to be done with it. Contracts trump reasonable human behaviour - lesson learnt.

What could I have done better?
I stumbled when asked by the judge where in the POFA it states they shouldn't access the owners details for the NTK before 28 days. I should have directed him to "6. Further, this access to my personal information is also a breach of the Independent Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code of Practice (IPC, 2017, V.6). VCS is noted to be accredited by the IPC. VCS are in breach of a number of processes in the Code of Practice, namely Part C, Point 2.1 (g) “The Notice to Driver must…….explain that if the full amount of the charge is not paid within 28 days an application will be made to DVLA for the keeper’s details to enable the charge to be enforced”. As stated in this Witness Statement the alleged contravention date (date car was photographed) was 10th March 2019 and as evidenced in VCS Subject Access Request my personal data was accessed through the DVLA on 18th March 2019. This is further evidence that VCS has not followed due process." However, this had knocked me and started hurriedly trying to find it in the POFA document. Bad idea!

At the end of the day I'd say fighting them probably isn't worth your time, unless the forum has since streamlined its guidance and made writing the defence and witness statement (and possibly your appeal, if you choose to) any easier. Not to poo-poo the good work you guys are doing here, I think you're fighting the scum which is great. However, I've come to value my time more than money and I think that I could have saved myself the stress, late nights researching and ultimately the higher fees if I had just agreed to be mugged off by them at the start.

If your time is worth more than minimum wage then just pay them. #unpopularopinion


Karma: I've since scrapped the car and had to buy two bicycles... the first one was stolen, the second one had its tires slashed - from the same parking spot! You'd think I'd learn, eh?

Coupon-mad

That's a shame - but good to hear that the £60 was not allowed.  Other Judges have decided that where people show evidence of permit, the appeal should have been accepted and there is no legitimate interest in pursuing a claim except to punish the driver, which is not a lawful justification.

You haven't been back since February but weren't they late filing their WS?  Did the Judge not care?

Snakes_Belly

Sorry that you lost. Unfortunately going to court is a lottery as to how the judge will interpret the law. Some judges would have dismissed the case on the grounds of De Minimis.

If it is any consolation you are not the biggest loser as it will have cost VCS much more to take you to court.

Hopefully the new CoP will introduce a much fairer system and motorists will not have to be taken to court for the most minor of parking transgressions. Courts have more important issues.

nosferatu1001

Fighting them and winning - which we see in about 80% of cases - denies them extra funds to attack people who are more vulnerable 

56756756

They didn't send their WS to my new address which I had informed them of in Dec last year. The first judge was very displeased about this and demanded the trial be delayed which is why I had the second hearing(?) today instead, after they'd sent the WS bundle via email.

I remember at the start of the hearing the judge said I could appeal but I've come to accept that as an individual I'd rather just stop playing their game so they can't win, instead of dying on a hill trying to change the system. I think you and others are very honourable with the support you guys give here and I hope eventually this community can turn the tide against rip-off Britain.

Thanks again for the time and patience of those who responded, documented and guided.

Good fight, goodnight.

beamerguy

I too am sorry you lost and Judge Bingo plays a big part. Until the judiciary understands what we understand we will see losses like yours, just as much as we see VCS beaten in court.  Most of the time, this forum wins and companies like VCS are aware they are at huge risk once a motorist comes on this forum.

Your judge did the right thing by deducting the fake £60. Don't think VCS did well, the costs of preparing cases is expensive and probably all they can claim is the word WIN ?

Rest assured though, when people come to this forum, VCS are on target to lose