Being sued again for a previous ticket

Peeves

nosferatu1001 said:

By "entered intpo..." that means you still have a copy, yes? 

I have a copy of the second letter I sent which complains that they ignored my first letter regarding my change of address. That second letter reiterates my address change. I have the proof of postage for that second letter too. The first letter is lost

nosferatu1001

Irrelevant. Youve got a lettetr telling them to change the address - they didnt - and that letter states this is the second letter. on BoP, you sent the first letter as well. 

Peeves

Fruitcake said:
Since the scammers didn't have reason to obtain keeper detail the first time you could make complaints to the DVLA that this was both a data breach and a KADOE contract breach. You could even start a court case against them if you are up for it and/or make a counterclaim for this one.

On the first point, I did complain to the DVLA after the claim was struck out but they said they trusted VCS acted correctly. I've added a quote from their response below. They asked VCS if they acted appropriately and VCS diligently investigated and found that they did. This, despite me providing the DVLA with a transcript from the hearing.

On the second, for the sake of my sanity I'll let the first breach go but if this second case goes to court I'll enter a counter claim (perhaps two if they refuse to acknowledge my change of address ) since I'll have a bunch of work to do anyway. At the time I did write to the DVLA and they have provided confirmation that VCS requested my details.

DVLA's response: I have investigated your complaint with the parking company in question. They have supplied me all the requested evidence to support the contravention. I have also requested the International Parking Community Ltd to confirm the land owner agreement in question allows Vehicle Control Services Ltd to manage the said land, and they have confirmed this.

While seeking to ensure that vehicle keeper data is released only in appropriate circumstances, it is not a matter for the Agency to decide on the merits of individual cases or to arbitrate in any civil disputes between motorists and private car park enforcement companies. The DVLA cannot regulate any aspect of a company’s business. Any representations should be made to the landowner or his agent. DVLA releases information on the basis that reasonable cause is demonstrated.

Coupon-mad

Oooh, you have a transcript of the hearing you paid for?  Can you share a copy but cover your name and car reg from the document, it could be useful for others at the same location.  Transcripts of cases are like golddust.

You can also use it when you reply to VCS telling them about 'cause of action estoppel'.  

I've replied about that doctrine, with case law, twice last month.  So search the forum and copy the wording and legal authorities to see them off now.  Also consider and threaten a counter-claim of maybe £500 (costs £35 court fee that you can also reclaim, if you have to proceed with it) due to VCS retaining your data to try to get an unlawful second bite at the cherry or CCJ to an old address.  

zhonguonuren

The ICO has been looking into my complaint about the DVLA for over a year. I have received 2 ‘updates’ - sorry we are taking so much time etc etc.  The DVLA is negligent and simply hands over personal details because a parking operator is a member of an ATA - never mind there is often no reasonable cause and it is just a scam tactic.  The DVLA has motorists’ implied consent via the V5 document.  I have written to the DVLA to say it must never again release my details to a parking company (Police is acceptable) because on 2 occasions the requests made by the parking operator were in breach of Data Protection/GDPR.  The IPC is a scam.  The IAS is a scam.  I have brought a claim on just about everybody in an attempt to stop this and am now suing the ICO. 

Peeves

I've just received a claim form from VCS (to the correct address). I need to dig out the paperwork but if I recall correctly there is no PoFA with this one. One of their letters, I think, stated something similar to I was being pursued "on the reasonable assumption that I was the driver". The claim is for £160. Issue date Jan 7 2021. Particulars:

The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendant's vehicle, [reg plate], was identified in the [private land] on the [date a few years ago] in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

Quick recap: I received two charges from VCS. They sued over the second, I won. They've now dug up the first and are suing over that. Identical scenario save for the date. Very kind of Boris to lock me up at home with nothing to do but do battle with VCS!

Edit: exact wording from VCS regarding the driver:

We note that you have declined to name the driver of your vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

KeithP

Peeves said:

I've just received a claim form from VCS (to the correct address). Issue date Jan 7 2021. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, you have until Tuesday 26th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 12th January, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Umkomaas

Edit: exact wording from VCS regarding the driver:

We note that you have declined to name the driver of your vehicle at the time of the incident in question. It is important we highlight that we will continue to pursue this matter on the reasonable assumption that you were the driver of the vehicle on the date in question until information/evidence to the contrary is provided.

I'm sure they would find this all so much easier if they complied with PoFA (general comment OP, not particularly specific to your case).

nosferatu1001

Yep, non pofa. But if you were the driver it's easier to say so. If you weren't, you also say so and make them prove you were 

Peeves

How can I apply for the claim to be struck out? As I understand it Hendersen v Hendersen is the authority on this matter but I don't know how to go about applying for the strike out. The charge being litigated now predates the charge they already attempted to claim for and had dismissed.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk said:

The rule in Henderson v Henderson is a shorthand for the legal proposition that a party is expected, indeed required, to present their entire case during the course of legal proceedings. The act of raising a line of argument in subsequent proceedings which could and should have been raised in the earlier proceedings constitutes an abuse of process and leaves the subsequent proceedings vulnerable to a strike-out application.