90 seconds part two 28 May 2020 at 5:46PM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking 226 replies 4.7K views

beamerguy

The point we see about VCS, is they are useless with the facts. It does explain their spankings 
I would suggest you let them make complete idiots of themselves, that alone seems to turn them on

ellaro9

Thanks, Ill wait for the claim form then.

Coupon-mad

I would reply to the LBC, telling them you will file a counterclaim for £900 plus costs and interest if they proceed.  Something like this:


Dear Sirs, 

Re PCN xxxxxxxx - response to Letter before Claim and notice of my counterclaim
I refer to your Letter before Claim, which I am prepared to accept may have been sent by mistake, given the fact that VCS are already aware that I am disabled, and your non-compliant attempt at a PCN breached the Equality Act 2010 as well as the IPC Code of Practice.  VCS are also aware that your employee/self ticketer is on video. I still have that evidence and VCS were furnished with a copy over two years ago, along with a copy of my Blue Badge.
 
My Dashcam video shows me parking; you can hear the door close as I get out, then I walk away from the vehicle's side, so I am not in shot.  Your self ticketer or employee appears just 90 seconds later at the vehicle's rear, taking photos and then at the front, placing the false 'not a parking charge' note and taking more photos. I did tell him I was disabled and showed him the Blue Badge, but he just told me I ''would get a CCJ'' if I didnt pay it.  I suggest your staff/self ticketers need to be retrained, because a person can't just 'get a CCJ' and he appears to have been ignorant about the IPC grace period and the Equality Act 2010. 

I can understand that a firm like VCS must have a high turnover of staff because private parking is hardly a permanent career choice, so am replying to ensure that the person who pressed the button to generate your template LBC now takes stock of your position.

It is indisputable that VCS had ample opportunity to cancel this PCN - indeed I thought you had because there was a gap after a flurry of intimidating debt demand letters in 2018 - and now, to add to your vexatious course of conduct, you have deliberately chosen this vulnerable time of the Covid_19 lockdown period to resurrect it, process my data again and try to frighten me into paying you a spurious and exaggerated sum.  In case that's not clear enough, any debt is denied and I will counterclaim and report you to the Information Commissioner if you persist.

What you should do now
VCS' litigation team must appraise themselves of the background and take note of my clear intention to counter-claim.  VCS should not even be processing my data two years after you knew, or should have known, that I was entitled to park in that bay and that my Blue Badge was shown to the person who placed the 'This is Not a Parking Charge' hybrid note on the windscreen within 90 seconds of me walking away.

I require VCS to erase my data, immediately after replying to confirm that the PCN has finally been cancelled.

Harassment and notice of proprosed £900 counter claim

Due to the wholly misleading debt demand letters VCS churned out in 2018 and your unreasonable refusal to accept proof of a disabled person's entitlement to park that day, VCS' course of conduct in resurrecting the matter now constitutes unwarranted harassment.  I dispute the quantum and object to the intimidatory, misleading nature of the entire operation.  

VCS have no cause of action, and must stop.   If you do not understand this I suggest you seek legal advice, or save money, keep it in-house and ask Jake Burgess to review the matter.  Given his legal qualifications I trust he will understand and can look up the 'Vento Guidelines'.   

If a claim is filed, I will counterclaim and I will seek damages for distress and VCS' breaches of statutory duty in the sum of £900.  Due to the gap in your communications I have set the proposed counterclaim at the very reasonable lower end of established guidance regarding disability harassment claims, pursuant to the following: 

a) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty and misleading actions within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, as amended by the Consumer Protection Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (“the Regulations”);  

b) damages for distress caused by the Claimants’ breach of statutory duty arising from breaches of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA');

c) damages for distress caused by breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 2018 and General Data Protection Regulation ('the GDPR');

d) damages for distress caused by harassment contrary to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 ('the PFHA') ref section 3;

e) damages for discrimination, distress and harassment of a person with protected characteristics, pursuant to multiple sections of the Equality Act 2010.

Personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully.  Your clients stand in breach of Article 5 (1) of the GDPR (the requirement for lawfulness, fairness and transparency) and the doctrines of open dealing and good faith in the CRA. Predatory ticketing of a known disabled person is entirely at odds with those doctrines and I have learned that VCS was stopped by the DVLA from issuing misleading 'not a parking charge' windscreen notices, in 2018, yet you still failed to cancel the charge and erase my data.  Accordingly, the processing of my DVLA data was not “necessary for the performance of, or commencing, a contract” and nor was it necessary or justified under any other data processing excuse.  Distress is now included under Article 82 of the GDPR and the 2018 DPA.

VCS had, and still has, no prospect of furthering their purpose and no legitimate cause to continue processing my data. In accordance with Principles 1,2 and 5 of the Data Protection Principles they were not permitted to either obtain, process or keep it.  Further, the quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and it is an unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are an AOS member, yet fail to comply with the ATA Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.  An unfair commercial practice is prohibited under regulation 3 of the aforemenioned regulations and your conduct when taken together with the comments of your ticketer on the day, amounts to a series of misleading actions within the meaning of regulations 5 and 6, for which redress is available under regulation 27(J)(b).

In all the premises, the conduct of VCS amounts to harassment under section 1 of the PFHA.  It is pertinent to adduce the authorities of:

(i) Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd  [2009] EWCA Civ 46

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html 

where Sedley LJ held: 

[52] ''...For my part I would draw attention to the fact [...] that harassment is a crime as well as a tort. Contrary to what was more than once suggested, this does not modify in any way the constituents of the wrong. 

[53] Parliament's intention in passing the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was to criminalise the kind of serious and persistent unwarranted threat which is alleged here, giving a right of civil action as a fallback. In this situation it ought not to be left to hardy individuals to put their savings and homes at risk by suing. The primary responsibility should rest upon local public authorities which possess the means and the statutory powers to bring alleged harassers, however impersonal and powerful, before the local justices.''

and 

(ii) Harrison v Link Financial Ltd [2011] EWHC B3 (Mercantile)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html 

 

where HHJ Chambers QC concluded at [83]:

''Cumulatively and damningly is what I find to be the way that MBNA and the Defendant went about recovering their debt. [...] It seems to me that such conduct has no proper function in the recovery of consumer debt. Whatever the strength of the suggestion that the courts should only be a last resort, I can see no legitimate comparison between a series of measured warnings which, after full opportunity for response, lead to legal proceedings and what took place. {...there} ...can be no excuse for conduct of which it must be supposed the sole purpose must have been to make the Claimant's life so difficult that he would come to heel. I cannot think that in a society that is otherwise so sensitive of a consumer's position this is conduct that should countenanced.''

(iii) Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2015] EWCA 311 which confirms that pecuniary loss is not necessary for compensation to be payable and that pure distress is enough.

A service provider (and VCS meets that definition as set out in the EHRC's Equality Act 'Services, public functions and associations' Statutory CoP) would only be considered to have taken 'all reasonable steps' to avoid discrimination, says the CoP ''if there were no further steps that they could have been expected to take''.   This is not true at all in my case; all the VCS ticketer needed to do was to simply cancel the charge on his hand-held machine as soon as he saw my Blue Badge that day.  If he had acted reasonably and professionally and been properly trained about grace periods and the Equality Act, VCS would never have been able to abuse the DVLA KADOE rules to buy my data.  Starting from the very day of the parking event, VCS had no 'reasonable cause' and no justification to continue.

The Vento guidelines stem from a landmark case from 2003 (Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police) where the Court of Appeal set out clear guidelines for Courts and Tribunals to apply when they are assessing injury to feelings awards.  The Vento case decided that there is now an accepted quantum for compensation and the lowest band is between £900 to £8,800.  VCS should consider itself fortunate that I am a reasonable person and have assessed my counterclaim at the lower end.  In a judgment at the Leeds County Court, 3SP00071 - Blamires v LGO, which was a claim for damages including a matter of a breach of the DPA, an award of £2,500 was granted as compensation for distress.

The thin skull rule
By reason of the matters aforesaid I have been obliged to deal with unjustified and aggressive correspondence from VCS for more than two years.  As a Litigant in Person I have suffered substantial damage and distress, causing sleepless nights, headaches and extreme anxiety in 2018 and now you seem to think I am fair game for a repeat.  I consider myself a robust person in many ways, but I am only human and will attest to the severe effect on my peace of mind, on oath if required by the Judge, when I appear at the hearing, to present my defence and counterclaim. 

It is even more alarming that your LBC has arrived out of the blue, deliberately timed to arrive during a hugely alarming time for consumers.   I believe that VCS are likely to be short of income flow and are desperately engaged in a 'scraping the barrel' exercise, to threaten victims of old charges and find those consumers again at a time when they may be more vulnerable, or may even have moved house so that you could obtain default CCJs without any checks.  Well, I am still here and my evidence is not going away, but I am, like many, a vulnerable person and your contact is unwanted and distressing.  I am certain that in my position, most people would have succumbed to the crippling pressure and paid, and that is how you make your money.  If the bullying and misleading conduct aimed at me regarding this unfair charge is an example of what VCS do every day, then sanctions by the courts are long overdue.

Litigation is not risk-free for a parking firm pursuing a person without justification (unlawfully in this case), and VCS must take their victim as they find me.   The thin skull or 'egg-shell' rule is a well-established principle in English law and takes into account the physical, social and economic attributes of the other party, which might make them more susceptible to injury or distress, whether physical or mental injury is the result.  The principle requires the Claimant in this case to compensate me to the full extent of my distress and injury to feelings even though they may be more serious than expected because of my pre-existing conditions, predispositions, and vulnerabilities, and in this respect I intend to ask that the Judge gives due consideration to a suitable percentage 'uplift', to send a message to this parking firm that they cannot breach consumer and disability laws.

Should you now file a claim, be in no doubt that I will proceed with my counterclaim and also pursue my entire costs pursuant to Part 27.14(2)(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules.  I urge VCS to cease and desist, apologise and erase my data immediately.  

Yours faithfully,  

1505grandad

@C-m -  did you mean to include  BPA  -  " Further, the quantum of the alleged debt is in breach of Schedule 2 of the CRA and it is an unfair business practice for a parking firm to state that they are an AOS member, yet fail to comply with the BPA's Code of Practice, which the Supreme Court took to be effectively 'regulatory'.

Coupon-mad

No, well spotted!

ellaro9

Thats fantastic, thank you very much, it will go today.
I noted the comment in the letter about VCS having a high staff turnover and that crossed my mind when I got their letter before claim yesterday, I wonder if someone new had come into the job and gone through some old ones and just picked mine up again.
Do I delete that part 1505granday picked up or does it just need editing to IPC?

Umkomaas

Do I delete that part 1505granday picked up or does it just need editing to IPC?

Just change BPA to IPC. 

ellaro9

Many thanks everyone, Im extremly grateful, that will go today and Ill get another proof of postage to add to my collection, everything they sent me has been saved along with the receipts for what Ive sent them in a folder.

beamerguy

Great letter C-m.  
I am a firm believer in such responses to a LBA.  The parking companies and their legals are too much up their own backsides. especially with the rubbish they send out.  Questions they cannot answer is the way forward because apart from your WS such letters can be shown to a judge

In the case I attended, a letter was sent to BWLegal one week before the case. It highlighted the problems for them. No reply was forthcoming probably because they thought they were "little gods" ???   WRONG, they got spanked

And with regards to the fake £60, it should always be asked on what legal authority they have. As there is no legal authority their can be no answer but they make it up as they go with such nonsensical rubbish ... enough to make a judge laugh at their childish attempts to mislead.

QUESTION, QUESTION. QUESTION and if they fail to reply and tell the truth then the next person to ask the same questions is the judge

Half_way

The antics of the parking company's are well known, I assume you have/are taking joint action against the car park owner over this?

Who's car park is it?