VCS County Court Letter - need to submit defence after filing AOS

Twinklefairy

Evening - I am putting together my defence to submit to County Court for an illegally issued PCN in late 2019. Need to submit defence by end of July roughly.
The basic facts:
Landowner has VCS managing their car park for a number of years and I am a customer of a business for a few years, business grants free parking to customers and visitors of said business.
Late 2019 advised by business that the car park is now being managed by a new company with ANPR and to register our vehicles with their office - which we do.
A few weeks later we get a PCN on the vehicle parked in business car park issued by VCS who in our minds don't have the right to issue tickets any longer. Reason being no ticket displayed, business advised we don't need to display a ticket - we get free parking. Several other customers also get PCN's in similar period.
Give PCN to business who say it will be dealt with. Received couple more follow ups, also given to business as instructed. Early 2020 follow up letters with increasing fines continue. Get letter from landowner solicitor which clearly states all tickets issued after late summer 2019 are issued illegally and if VCS continue to pursue, customer has full defence. Letter is posted to VCS. Received letter from VCS  basically saying landowner didn't give 3 months notice to VCS, ticket was issued legally as still within 3 months notice period and therefore current PCN still stands. Two weeks ago county court letter received with costs now at £185 to pay. 
Any help would be appreciated.

Redx

Post the issue date from the claim form below

Post the date the AOS was done

Read the second post of the newbies FAQ sticky thread near the top of the forum , then decide if you are using the 2020 defence template , or not

Twinklefairy

Date of issue was 7th July
AOS filed 19th July

KeithP

Twinklefairy said:

Date of issue was 7th July
AOS filed 19th July

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th August 2020 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three 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, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Twinklefairy

This is my defence so far (with some help)- i have removed all reference to business names and addresses and actual dates and also intend to put a counterclaim for breach of data and harassment - would appreciate any feedback (numbering is a bit out but that will be fixed)
1. The facts are that the vehicle, registration registration, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the date in question in a parking space which forms part of Business car park address, and had a valid permit to be parked in that car park as a customer of Business.

2.The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all, for the reasons stated below.
3.                  The Claimant is claiming a global sum of £160 in relation to the parking charge. This figure is a penalty, as it exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from the keeper (£100 in this case) as stated in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and also exceeds what was considered a legitimate sum in the Beavis case before the Supreme Court.

3.                  Claims pleaded on this basis have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court hearing centres. Two examples of such Judicial rulings are appended to this document, one from District Judge Taylor sitting at Southampton, and one from District Judge Jones-Evans sitting at Caernarfon).

4.                  The Court is, therefore, invited to strike out the claim as an abuse of process, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 5.                  In the alternative, the Defendant avers that they are not liable for the charge for the following reasons:

6.                  The Defendant has been a customer of Business since September 2017.  The Defendant’s contract with the Business grants the Defendant the right to park at the specified location without additional charge.  At all times, the Defendant has followed the instructions of Business Limited with regards to parking.  

7.                  With regard to property owned by Business Limited and by virtue of a transfer dated 25th April 2008, made between Business Limited (1) and Business Limited (2) and the terms thereof; customers and invitees of Business Limited have a right “to use the car parking bays within the Car Park Area for the parking of private vehicles”. Accordingly, customers and invitees of Business Limited are entitled to park in the car park free of charge and the Claimant does not hold any entitlement to issue parking tickets and enforce them through litigation so long as the Defendant remains a customer of Business. (Appendix A)

 8.                  Further to the above, the Defendant refers to a letter from Solicitor X acting as solicitors for Business Landowner  Limited, the current landowners which confirms that the Claimant had no authority to issue charges on the material date:

 " As solicitors for Business Landowner  Limited,, the owner of the car park situated at  Business, Address, Postcode (the 'car park'), we confirm that as Vehicle Control Services Limited are aware, any right they had to access the car park or issue any parking tickets on the same was terminated on Date 2019.

Any tickets issued after this date, were issued without the permission of the owner of the site and against their express instruction. In the event that Vehicle Control Services Limited have any issue with this, they are further aware they should direct any issues to us on behalf of Landowner Limited, not to persons who have parked on the car park from the date  2019.” 

(Appendix

 9.                  The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of their authority to issue charges at this location on the material date.

10.              Regardless of the status of the Claimant’s contract with the landowner, the Defendant’s right to park overrides any contract with the Claimant by means of “primacy”.

11.              Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract was entered into with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct, and as such the Defendant cannot be held liable to the Claimant for damages arising from any alleged breach of the purported terms.

 12.              For any or all of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss this claim in its entirety should the matter proceed to trial, and to award the Defendant’s witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14.

DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST THE CLAIMANT

 This is the Defendant's counterclaim against the Claimant for unlawful processing of data and harassment.

1. The First Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 states:  

“Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully...........”

2.                  The Second Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 states:

“Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes”

3.                  The Fifth Principle of the Data Protection Act 1998 states:

“Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.”
4.                  Therefore the Claimant has breached the First, Second and Fifth principles of the Data Protection Act.

5.                  Since November 2019, the Claimant processed the Defendant's personal data in such a way as to cause the Defendant significant damage and/or substantial distress. The damage and/or distress caused was unwarranted.

6.                  Briefly, the damage and/or distress was unwarranted because the Claimant had no good reason to retain or process the data in the way that it did.         

7.              A reasonable and appropriate figure, namely £500, which is broken down as follows: £250 for the Claimant’s breach and £250 for their subsequent harassment of the Defendant.

And the Defendant claims:

 (a) damages no greater than £500; and

(b) interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates and for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may think fit.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts contained in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

beamerguy

Interesting scenario.  as you have a counterclaim, they can hardly discontinue and if they tried, that would imply they admit they acted illegally.   If the fact is correct as in the solicitors letter, there is the point that VCS signed the statement of truth (as per the new procedure 6th April 2020), just as you have done, VCS are in trouble.  Then there is an official complaint to the DVLA and the ICO

D_P_Dance

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP., it can cause the scammer extra costs, and in some cases, cancellation. 

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up later this year,

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these companies, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/of these Private Parking Companies.

Umkomaas

@Twinklefairy - you've done your homework well, nice one. As there is no mention in your detailed post of paying any fee for making a counterclaim, I just wanted to check that you are aware that for a £500.00 counterclaim, a fee of £35 will need to be paid to HMCTS?

https://www.gov.uk/make-court-claim-for-money/court-fees

Castle

The Principles are now set out in Article 5 of GDPR, ( as from May 2018):-
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-5-gdpr/

nosferatu1001

Indeed, make sure you use DPA2018
Make sure you pay that counterclaim fee
I personally would go for £1000.

Twinklefairy

beamerguy said:

Interesting scenario.  as you have a counterclaim, they can hardly discontinue and if they tried, that would imply they admit they acted illegally.   If the fact is correct as in the solicitors letter, there is the point that VCS signed the statement of truth (as per the new procedure 6th April 2020), just as you have done, VCS are in trouble.  Then there is an official complaint to the DVLA and the ICO

If i didn't do a counterclaim is there a chance it would be discontinued without going to a hearing or mediation ? The solicitors letter clearly states i have full defence, i have no reason to think this is a lie but VCS are ignoring it