Parking ticket from VCS and rejected appeal as keeper (not driver) - next steps?

Le_Kirk

88engine said:

@Coupon-mad that list of examples, from which to take inspiration for the facts of the case, are taken from the thread section that reads "Here are some cases won or in progress which should help you with ideas as to what to put in as 'case specific facts' at #16 or #17 of the template defence, if your case is not a ParkingEye one"

Are you reading this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 as that is the one that contains the template defence for PPCs trying to add the spurious £60.  You make changes that suit your specific circumstances to paragraphs 17 & 18 because @Coupon-mad made some recent changes.

88engine

Morning all. Filling in my defence now. So I'm clear, can you please confirm whether or not I should copy and paste my whole defence (minus particulars like names, references etc) to this forum? There has obviously been some back and forth with putting specifics on here, not putting specifics on here and, frankly, I've no idea what is right, wrong desired etc etc. Grateful if you could confirm whilst I'm doing it so I can put on whatever I need to. 

Le_Kirk

If you are using the template defence written by @Coupon-mad you only need to give us paragraphs 17 & 18.

nosferatu1001

DONT give us anything we have seen before. Its a waste of everyones time. 
If you have adjusted something non-trivial, include it

88engine

Paras 17 and 18 below. 
I also have a couple of things to check:

1. The total claim is for £185. The original £100, plus £60 applied months ago, plus another £25 added now for a "court fee". Where the defence templates denotes £160, should I be changing this to £185, leaving it at £160, not mentioning the £25 at all, or adding in an extra sentence stating they have added another £25??
2. A little concerned with para 17, as VCS are specifically mentioned in the template - suggesting they are hot on POFA?
3. Finally, is it worth adding in a suggestion that they potentially underhandedly obtained my mobile number to confirm my name/keeper info? A couple days after appealing I received a phone call asking for someone named as my surname (as in they asked for 'Bloggs' if my name was Joe Bloggs). When I returned with my full name (obviously matching the surname they gave) they said wrong number and hung up. Of course it could be a coincidence, but it was a bit odd. But it's obviously not confirmed...

17. The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

 

18. Having entered the communal parking area, the Defendant found an available bay and parked up. The weather was dark, overcast and the rain was heavy. There was no lighting within the parking area; only a single, poorly maintained and old-fashioned lighting column on the main road. Bays were adjacent to the building in which the Defendant was visiting. Bays were in no way demarcated such that it would be clear that there were restrictions in place; the road surface was block paving, which was consistent for the main road, access road, parking bays and parking areas. There were no distinguishable features. The pictures clearly corroborate this description; as well as the fact that the parking area was sparsely populated, adding to the hypothesis that the area was not commonly used, under restricted use or indecorously operated. Upon returning to the vehicle, the Defendant found a PRIVACY NOTICE attached to the vehicle. The purpose and intent of this card was and is exceptionally unclear. Furthermore, the card holds details of two companies: Excel Parking and Vehicle Control Service, causing additional confusion and unease at what the card is/was for. Reviewing the signing issued to the Defendant, there is no reference to Excel Parking. The signs do not make clear who owns the land.

nosferatu1001

Thyre not "hot on POFA". Quite the opposite. as you must know by know, VCS dont even try to use POFA2012. Please say youre reading other threads, doing obvious searches - using the forum, in other words?

£100 plus £60 is the amount youre looking at. Obviously court fees - which you can confirm are legit just by a simple google search - cant be included in the global sum. 
What would you gain by this? What would they have to gain from that? Given you know, they have you name and address from the DVLA....

Coupon-mad

1.  The total claim is for £185. The original £100, plus £60 applied months ago, plus another £25 added now for a "court fee". Where the defence templates denotes £160, should I be changing this to £185, leaving it at £160, not mentioning the £25 at all, or adding in an extra sentence stating they have added another £25??

It's £160 - like all the rest you see, on any VCS thread.

2.  A little concerned with para 17, as VCS are specifically mentioned in the template - suggesting they are hot on POFA?

What?  Far from it!  They NEVER use the POFA.  Have you read any VCS threads an copied from others?

The answer to your Q3 is ''no'' if I'm understanding correctly that you can't be sure it was VCS?

Are you trying to argue that you were only the keeper and not the driver, and so can't be held liable?  If so, say it more clearly in #17 but only 'deny' you were driving if that is TRUE of course (no lying to a court).

Or (as your #18 strongly suggests) are you trying to defend as the driver who has knowledge of the parking event and lighting/weather conditions and how small the sign text was (= a good defence stance) in which case you obviously remove all these phrases:

17. The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by predatory ticketing and/or by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

Why not just split what you put in as #18, across #17 and #18 instead of the above?  I would start #18 with your sentence that starts 'Upon...'. 

And I wouldn't use long/unnatural words like 'indecorously'.

88engine

Thanks. I'll do just that. Is it a problem that I'm making it pretty clear, although without actually saying it, that I was the driver? Or is that no longer relevant at this stage and based on the arguments within my defence?

nosferatu1001

If you want to rely on them NOT being able to identify the driver, as part of your defence, then clearly identifying the driver is a bad idea .

88engine

Thanks. Yes - well I don't suppose that is my main defence, but at the moment it's in there as an added extra I guess. Not sure if that's at all relevant or beneficial in any way. My defence follows the template and is all about abuse of process. Does it help that they cannot identify the driver? If so, I could tweak my defence to walk through the facts as registered keeper without suggesting that I, the Defendant, experienced them? I have one eye on the next stage and any potential hearing, in which case would I just end up having to admit it then anyway (if that was the case of course)?