OPS - Vantage Point

fishsoup

I’ve recently received a court claim from DCBL acting on behalf of OPS. Vantage Point was the car park used, I’ve read a few of the threads about this company.

I have acknowledged my service of claim and have until 8th April to file my defence. The particulars of claim are vague….

The incident goes back to March 2019 - my memory is a little vague, possibly the ticket machine wasn’t accepting cash and that is why I didn’t buy a ticket. I have misplaced any details that had been sent by OPS/DCBL.I have requested an SAR from OPS but I still haven’t received anything. 

I requested a CPR 31.14 from DCBL who cleverly got me to confirm my name and address then refused to give me any details unless the court requested them to.

I have followed another forum to get some advice previously but wanted to get some advice from the experts who have fought these cowboys before.

I am in the process of writing my defence, I just wanted to know whether I should use a generic response and say they don’t have right to these funds because there was no contract etc or I should say I think the machine wasn’t working, therefore I couldn’t buy a ticket. My memory is hazy from 2 years ago and can’t be 100% sure that the machine wasn’t working. The last thing I want to do is state that and then be proved wrong. 

I will post my defence later, hopefully someone would be kind enough to critique it, it will be based on the template in the Newbies thread bar some tweaks here and there.

Thanks in advance. 

Umkomaas

I just wanted to know whether I should use a generic response and say they don’t have right to these funds because there was no contract etc or I should say I think the machine wasn’t working, therefore I couldn’t buy a ticket. 

You should use the ready-written defence template (one of the only 5 Announcements shown at the head of the forum thread list), adding your own words to form paras 2 and 3, then let us see just those 2 paras - we don't need to see the rest, unless you change anything (and that is definitely not advised) in any other para, then just let us see that with the changes highlighted and explained. 

bar some tweaks here and there.

You'll need some good reason (and explained) for doing so. Remember, a Defence is not about 'what happened on the day' story - that comes much later in the process in your Witness Statement, probably some months away. 

nosferatu1001

Yes, because CPR31.14 does not apply to the small claims track, so was never going to work. Please read the CPRs you quote, it would help you not waste time and look naive

Please tell us
- date of issue
- date you filed AOS and by what method
->  MCOL history has these if you dont remember. 

DO NOT POST THE ENTIRE DEFENCE
ONLY post what you have changed. We're marking YOUR work, not C-Ms! 
If the machines were not working, why not say so?? If you are unsure, state your belief that they were not working, and so any purported contract was void due to impossibility. Are you sure of the drivers identity? It is OK to be unsure, given its a couple years ago.  Has the drivers identity been revealed? 

nosferatu1001

Note that none of those questions about the driver requiires you to do more than typ0e YES or NO. DO NOT ELABORATE because you havent been asked to

fishsoup

I have now received the SAR, I had requested details of the machine but they can't give me anything, I think the machine wasn't  working, therefore I couldn't purchase a ticket but I'm not 100% sure. 

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, because CPR31.14 does not apply to the small claims track, so was never going to work. Please read the CPRs you quote, it would help you not waste time and look naive

Please tell us
- date of issue
- date you filed AOS and by what method
->  MCOL history has these if you dont remember. 

DO NOT POST THE ENTIRE DEFENCE
ONLY post what you have changed. We're marking YOUR work, not C-Ms! 
If the machines were not working, why not say so?? If you are unsure, state your belief that they were not working, and so any purported contract was void due to impossibility. Are you sure of the drivers identity? It is OK to be unsure, given its a couple years ago.  Has the drivers identity been revealed? 

08/03/2021
13/03/2021

There is evidence of a person driving a car where the face has been greyed out but nothing has been disclosed in relation to the driver.

Ralph-y

suggested reading

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest

direct link to court section in newbies thread
.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
and  
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here/p1

Ralph

blackdog2220

There is evidence of a person driving a car where the face has been greyed out but nothing has been disclosed in relation to the driver.

does the parking company have a database showing a side on picture of every car driver in the UK to compare the photo taken by a ANPR type camera ?
remember , the sar included EVERY photo , picture etc , so why was a picture WITHOUT being greyed not out sent to you? 
does it exist or not , if it does , then they have breeched ICO rules (not sent it to you)
if it dosnt exist , they cant use it in court 

fishsoup

2.   It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  

3. The Defendant was alleged to have parked at Vantage Point Car Park in Brighton on xxxxx.  On arrival the Defendant tried to purchase a ticket with cash, but the machine was not working so a ticket could not be purchased, therefore making any contract unenforceable. 

Do I need to beef it up a bit more?

From memory I did not have access to my phone and could not purchase a ticket via the app, is that a mitigating factor? and should it be mentioned?

Thanks

KeithP

fishsoup said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, because CPR31.14 does not apply to the small claims track, so was never going to work. Please read the CPRs you quote, it would help you not waste time and look naive

Please tell us
- date of issue
- date you filed AOS and by what method
->  MCOL history has these if you dont remember. 

DO NOT POST THE ENTIRE DEFENCE
ONLY post what you have changed. We're marking YOUR work, not C-Ms! 
If the machines were not working, why not say so?? If you are unsure, state your belief that they were not working, and so any purported contract was void due to impossibility. Are you sure of the drivers identity? It is OK to be unsure, given its a couple years ago.  Has the drivers identity been revealed? 

08/03/2021
13/03/2021

Please explain exactly what those two dates you have posted are meant to represent.

I can guess that the first one is the Issue Date of your County Court Claim and the second date might be the date that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service of the Claim, but guessing is not good at this stage in the process.

If I can write sentences, so can you.

blackdog2220

 right , not going to go back thru this thread and I think 2 on pepipoo , in this case have the parking co fully complied with POFa2012 
if not then you are handing them a win on a plate , in the parking world there is no such thing as mitigating circumststances , you will loose in court .
not sure why you are going ,,,,,,,,,,,, when from memory the land is non relivent for POFa2012 as it comes under bylaws 
is known for having problems with landholders athority , bad signage and faulty machines 
Defendant was the  I am registered keeper of the vehicle 
the Defendant driver tried to purchase a ticket with cash

fishsoup

KeithP said:

fishsoup said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Yes, because CPR31.14 does not apply to the small claims track, so was never going to work. Please read the CPRs you quote, it would help you not waste time and look naive

Please tell us
- date of issue
- date you filed AOS and by what method
->  MCOL history has these if you dont remember. 

DO NOT POST THE ENTIRE DEFENCE
ONLY post what you have changed. We're marking YOUR work, not C-Ms! 
If the machines were not working, why not say so?? If you are unsure, state your belief that they were not working, and so any purported contract was void due to impossibility. Are you sure of the drivers identity? It is OK to be unsure, given its a couple years ago.  Has the drivers identity been revealed? 

08/03/2021
13/03/2021

Please explain exactly what those two dates you have posted are meant to represent.

I can guess that the first one is the Issue Date of your County Court Claim and the second date might be the date that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service of the Claim, but guessing is not good at this stage in the process.

If I can write sentences, so can you.

It was in reply to nosferatu1001 - a question about dates....I tried to quote his message..

Please tell us
- date of issue
- date you filed AOS and by what method
->  MCOL history has these if you dont remember.