VCS Small Claims Stage - Residential visitor

aa92

Just wanted to update you all 

The Court responded and have aggregated the hearings onto one date, but the letter specifically states that the claims will be treated separately. I guess in my defence I will have to quote case law as pointed out previous regarding doubling of the claims?

Coupon-mad

You mean in your witness statement?  Yes you can mention that as unreasonable conduct, which caused more work and costs risk.  But mainly you need to set out your story clearly, with evidence and exhibits.

Now you have a hearing date, you will see you also have a deadline to file and serve the WS and evidence (unless the earlier Notice of Allocation covered that).  It is never just 3 days before so don't read the wrong bit.

aa92

Yes exactly in the witness statement. 

I will start to prepare this and share here. 

As per the previous notice of allocation letters, the instruction was that the WS/evidence should be served no later than 14 days prior to the hearing date. There is no new instruction on this letter. 

Coupon-mad

Perfect, that's your last deadline then. 

Have a look at the WS bundle pics and links, in the discussions by the two posters whose posting profiles I linked.

aa92

Am I correct in thinking that the WS can be emailed to the local court and to VCS? Or does this need to be served by post to both parties? 

Not_A_Hope

Yes the WS can be emailed to both. Best if you send one email to both. That way the PPC cannot claim they did not receive a copy when the court did.

aa92

Thank you for confirming (Y)

Not_A_Hope said:

Yes the WS can be emailed to both. Best if you send one email to both. That way the PPC cannot claim they did not receive a copy when the court did.

aa92

Just wanted to recap in terms of this case and my draft WS. 

- Vehicle was parked at a friends residential block (gated, underground car park, only able to enter via a keyfob) 

- Car was parked for 10 days, in the same spot, did not move. Paper permits were placed in the windscreen for every day that the car was parked, these were purchased through the building management (no receipt available) and were correctly dated.
The registration mark (unfortunately) was not written on any of the permits (we were in a rush to catch a flight). 

- Both myself and my friend (the resident) were abroad for the duration of the 10 days that the car was parked. 

- We returned from abroad to find windscreen PCNs (I believe 3 - no longer have these). 

- 9 days after the NTK, my friend wrote to VCS through their web portal, appealing to remove the PCNs, explaining that we were out of the country and were unable to rectify the permits in a timely manner. And that the building management had been informed of parking in the bay and permits had been purchased from them as required. 

- 23 days after the NTK, VCS replied to my friend requiring clarification of who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged PCN. 

- 52 days after the NTK, VCS write to me acknowledging my friends correspondence and giving me the option to transfer liability to the driver. With an offer for the reduced original rate of £60, if paid in 2 weeks, otherwise rising again to £100. 

- I write to VCS directly to explain that my friend (who had contacted them earlier) was the driver in question during the material dates. I give them his serviceable address (at the residential building where these PCNs arise from). VCS receive this within 2 weeks of their previous letter. 

- They then write to me again 11 days later saying that they are unable to accept my appeal. And that as per PoFA I am liable as they were not made aware of the driver within the 28 day period. 

Following this I then ignored them I believe, bit hazy as this happened 3 years ago. 

My main question is, given that they gave me the opportunity to notify them of the details of the driver (outside of the 28 days per PoFA) and then when I provided them with this information they effectively rescinded this opportunity - can this be deemed unfair and therefore absolve me to be chased for the sum they claim?

This is notwithstanding the argument of the elevated £160 that they claim for - which I will be arguing as penal. 

In their WS, they show a few images including a couple close ups of the windscreen of the car having multiple dated permits, but with the registration mark box being blank. They raise this in their WS and say the permit was therefore void and they have grounds to their claim. 

Additionally they have logged two separate claims, for 2 days apart during this parking period, otherwise materially the same. I will also be citing Henderson v Henderson. In the second claim their witness statement evidences are incomplete, there is no NTK attached, nor any of the correspondence I have described above - they only show the landowner contract, a few small images of the car park and a close up of one sign. There are no images of the permits in the windscreen of the car. 

Coupon-mad

Very good. Two claims is an abuse of the court process!

When you email your WS and exhibits bundle (and costs assessment) to the local court and VCS, point out in the body of the email that there are two duplicate facts claims xxxxxx and xxxxxx which relate to one 'period of parking' where the car was not moved in between.  These would be best consolidated into a single hearing and you ask that a Judge reviews this in the light of the Overriding Objective and orders all charges to be heard at one hearing (and vacates one date, if 2 have been set).

My main question is, given that they gave me the opportunity to notify them of the details of the driver (outside of the 28 days per PoFA).

No. Your main question is why they lied about the POFA and why they are pursuing you when they had the name and address of the driver who parked the car.

There is no legal cause of action against you and no 28 day cut off to transfer liability.  The POFA does NOT say this.

You need in evidence the POFA Schedule 4 and the Parking News article by a law firm about the fact that operators cannot pursue a keeper if they know the identity & contact details for the driver 'before court action commences'. It confirms the legal position for your Judge.

SCS Law on what it means to 'begin proceedings' (transfer liability)  They confirm the correct interpretation:

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/395/26/  

Useful to screenshot that and use it as an exhibit in a case like yours, where a PPC is telling stories to the court about an imaginary 28 day deadline to transfer liability. Not according to the law.

aa92

Coupon-mad said:

Very good. Two claims is an abuse of the court process!

Thank you CM. 

Should I mention the fact that permits were in the vehicle in my WS and corresponded to each day of parking. Not sure how to comment on the registration number being left out.

Or should I ignore this part completely and just focus on the two claims abuse as well as the inflated charge from £100 to £160?