VCS COURT CLAIM

KeithP

KC1974 said:

I have included the following in my defence taken from another witness statement which was relevant:

A key factor in “ParkingEye v Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature”. I have included a comparable entrance/parking sign used by ParkingEye Ltd ....

where can I find this image???

Google Beavis parking sign.

Snakes_Belly

This may be what you are looking for. You may find a better one. I think that it is the one that I used. It compares well with the Excel/VCS signs which contain a lot of detail in very small font.  

Le_Kirk

KC1974 said:

I have included the following in my defence taken from another witness statement which was relevant:
A key factor in “ParkingEye v Beavis” was that the relevant signs were “large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature”. I have included a comparable entrance/parking sign used by ParkingEye Ltd ....
where can I find this image???

You don't provide evidence until witness statement stage.  Ask Auntie Google for the image.

Coupon-mad

I suggest this, but obviously re-number the lower paragraphs in the template and remove 'in hours of darkness' if that's not correct.  I guessed that because you said that the signs are unlit:

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the day/time in question and is not the liable party and has no obligation in law to name the driver, even if the keeper knows.  No adverse inference can be drawn and there is no application of the law of agency in this scenario, as this Claimant's owner Simon Renshaw-Smith is well aware, following several cases involving his two parking firms, including a persuasive appeal at Manchester County Court, where HHJ Smith overturned an error in the lower court (Excel v Smith - C0DP9C4E/M17X062, 8/6/2017).  This case transcript and others will be adduced in evidence to show that this Claimant's claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious because they undoubtedly know there is no cause of action against a registered keeper, absent evidence that they were the driver, which is denied.  There are other family members who are entitled to driver this vehicle and that individual was not the Defendant.

3.   These issue of lack of keeper liability was tested in Excel v Lamoureux ( C3DP56Q5, Skipton County Court, 17/11/2016) where Distract Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds summarised the issue: ''I think the claim against Mr Lamoureux is totally misconceived because it has no evidence that he is the driver and it seems to be relying on some assumption that the registered keeper is the driver because it is not seeking to rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 or keeper liability''.   The issue has also been tested against this Claimant, reported multiple times, including in VCS v Quayle  C1DP0H0J. Liverpool, 04/05/2017 where Deputy District Judge Gourley found, in the presence of VCS' barrister:  ''They may have had a claim had they complied with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act, but they have not and they cannot pursue Miss Quayle on the basis of a breach of contract in the absence of any evidence at all that she was actually the driver at the time of the incurrence of the parking charge notice.''

4. The Claimant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 ('the POFA'). The date of the alleged Parking Charge was 26/02/2020; when a Notice to Driver ('NTD') was placed on the vehicle. To comply the earliest date of which the claimant could request the registered keeper details from the DVLA was 25/03/2020.   However, the Notice to Keeper ('NTK')  was received by the defendant just days after the alleged parking event, dated 28/02/2020 and does not contain the requisite wording, including but not limited to the prescribed warning of keeper liability (ref: para 8(2)f or 9(2)f, as the case may be).   As such, the Defendant has no liability in law and the court is invited to strike out this claim with immediate effect, or in the alternative, exercise its case management powers by ordering a preliminary hearing, to consider the specific matter of lack of POFA keeper liability and, in the event that the Claim is dismissed, the Defendant's costs claimed on the indemnity basis due to the conduct of a Claimant whose legal team know exactly what the law says, yet still pursue registered keepers and misuse their data once it has been obtained (for very limited purposes) from the DVLA.

5.   The Claimant has chosen not to rely on POFA and are proceeding in the indisputable knowledge that they have no legal claim against the Defendant under Law.  Indeed, the Claimant has obtained the Defendant's data a month too early, which is in clear breach of the DVLA KADOE rules and the basic principles in the Data Protection Act 2018 as well as the POFA, at Schedule 4 paragraph 8, which sets out the mandatory wording and timeline for serving a NTK following a NTD.  On this occasion the Claimant, being a long established parking firm with an in-house legal team, will know that they have failed to invoke 'keeper liability'.  Paragraph 8 says: ''(4) The notice must be given by—
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.''

6.  The defendant has felt harassed by the ‘debt recovery’ letters that the Defendant's research shows, bombard recipients as standard practice, in terrorem of consumers whether they are liable or not.  This conduct by the Claimant has caused significant distress and anxiety.  However, the Defendant has attempted to ascertain some facts about the location, to narrow the issues that faced the driver, despite not being liable for this parking charge.  The address where the alleged parking event took place has insignificant signage. which would be incapable of binding a driver to an 'agreed' contract by parking in hours of darkness.  The limited signage is not lit nor positioned in an appropriate position to the entrance or the land in question. 

1505grandad

Apologies  -  some pedantic observations if I may:-

Para 2  -  "There are other family members who are entitled to driver this vehicle and (that individual was not) the Defendant."

should that be (these individuals were not) in view of more than one family member?  -  assuming there are more than the driver and D named on insurance.

Para 3  -  "(These) issue of lack of keeper liability was tested..............."    -    (This)?

                 "where (Distract) Judge Skalskyj-Reynolds......."   -    typo (District)

Para 4  -  "...........prescribed warning of keeper liability (ref: para 8(2)f or 9(2)f, as the case may be)." 

should ref to para 9 be deleted as para 8 is extensively used in para 5? 

Coupon-mad

Good points!  Typos are par for the course...thanks for spotting them as I didn;t.

I meant to put para 8 or 9 'as the case may be' because I think VCS will say the NTD was just a privacy notice, and it may be that the OP has to switch tack and refer the Judge in the end to para 9(2)f to show that the NTK was non-POFA, not the date of it being served. 

VCS don't put NTDs on cars then follow it with a NTK within a few days, in 2020.  But the defence is right to suggest it looked like one.

nosferatu1001

Op - a defence and a WS are two utterly and completely different th7ngs. You cannot copy one to the other. 

KC1974

Thanks for all your help. I have amended the defence. I am aware the Witness statement is entirely different I am working on that at the same time as the defence!!

KC1974

I have received this morning a notice of allocation for an upcoming court case where I am defending against VCS. The case has been ordered to be heard on 'papers alone' and nobody is to attend the court in person. I remember reading on here a while ago to object to this happening, as I wont be able to claim expenses should i win the case and I should have my day in person.
I have sent an email to the court stating that I wish the hearing to be in person and not via papers only. I have now received a reply saying that the court case will be a telephone hearing!!!  Not sure what to do??

Coupon-mad

The telephone hearing is fine, fully expected and almost as good as in person.  It is the norm now.  You avoided a hearing on the papers and your voice will be heard, so that's great.