Completed Case Against VCS Ltd

Nomad24

Hi All, 

Points #2 and #3 of the defence template which I have amended are attached below. I would greatly appreciate any feedback from the forum members. The claim was issued on the 26/08/2021 and after sending the AOS my deadline is the 28/09/2021. Please let me know if there is any other information that could assist in the feedback. 

Claim points #2 and #3:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. In addition, due to the length of elapsed time between the alleged contravention and pursuit by the Claimant, it is uncertain whether the Defendant was the driver at the time.

3. The Defendant became aware of the alleged contravention 2 years and 7 months later, in the form of a ‘Demand for Payment’ letter issued by the Claimant. Prior to the ‘Demand for Payment’ letter which alleges a sum of £160 owed, there was no ‘Notice to Keeper’ in the 2 years and 7 months, which completely violates the condition set out in Sch4, Section 6(1b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). Irrespective of whether a ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued, Sch4 Section 6(1a) of the POFA outlines the need for an ensuing ‘Notice to Keeper’ which has not been issued at any point by the Claimant. The ‘Demand for Payment’ correspondence abruptly sent 2 years and 7 months later without accurately following the due diligence outlined in Sch4 of the POFA, is suggestive of an attempt to scare the Defendant into payment while in violation of proper procedure. The ‘Demand for Payment’ was followed by a ‘Final Demand’ letter, ‘Letter Before Claim’ and a ‘Notification of Instruction’; each increasing in its hostility. While none of these letters satisfied the provisions outlined in Sch4, Sections 8 or 9 of the POFA. Therefore, the Defendant’s stance is that liability is not held due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA.

KeithP

Hello and welcome to the forums.

There is nothing in there that offers any explanation to the court about what actually happened at the time of the parking event.
There is also nothing saying what the driver has allegedly done wrong.

Have you asked yourself why you heard nothing about this incident for over two years?
Is/was the Keeper's address kept up to date on the vehicle's Registration Document (V5c)?

Nomad24

OK, I’ll rewrite and explain what happened.

I honestly believe it was to illicit a higher payment because this option is often ’easier’ for people. I haven’t changed addresses or done anything which could have made it difficult for contact.

Yes, the V5C was kept up to date, the dates coincide with when I was the keeper.

Coupon-mad

Then you will need to get a SAR to find out which address was on those first letters.  See NEWBIES thread second post, you will need a SAR but don't let that delay your defence of course.

Your defence, even if you can't be sure who was driving, must also tell the Judge facts about the car park and whether you know it (local knowledge) and why the driver would have been there and might have considered they were authorised.  E.g. your family used that car park because...why? ...it was a local retail park, or GP surgery, or residential estate where a family member lives, etc.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

KeithP

Nomad24 said:

The claim was issued on the 26/08/2021 and after sending the AOS my deadline is the 28/09/2021. Please let me know if there is any other information that could assist in the feedback. 

You are probably right with your Defence filing deadline, but that depends on when exactly you filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

If you filed an AoS sometime after 31st August and before 15th September, then as you say, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 28th September 2021 to file your Defence.

If you filed an AoS before 31st August then your Defence filing deadline will be earlier.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Nomad24

Hi again, 

Needless to say how thankful I am for the resources and support given by this community of heroes! Best way to show my gratitude is to defend this properly!

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

I haven't, I thought about complaining to the Landlords, however, I wasn't able to find anything online. The whole car park was quite ambiguous if I'm honest. 

KeithP said:

If you filed an AoS before 31st August then your Defence filing deadline will be earlier.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

This is the information that is available on the moneyclaim website regarding my submission:

• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 30/08/2021 at 11:30:39
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/08/2021 at 01:20:11

Given the difference in submission and receipt which one would be the 'date from' and does it change the deadline?

I aim to get this emailed - as instructed in the NEWBIES thread - by the end of today if all goes well. 

Coupon-mad said:

Then you will need to get a SAR to find out which address was on those first letters.  See NEWBIES thread second post, you will need a SAR but don't let that delay your defence of course.

SAR sent via email to VCS Ltd right now

For the sake of simplifying, I will include my rewritten points 2 and 3 in the next post!

Nomad24

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. In addition, due to the length of elapsed time between the alleged contravention and pursuit by the Claimant, it is uncertain whether the Defendant was the driver at the time. During the periods of 2015-2018 the drivers of the vehicle frequented Fernandez Grillhouse (7 High St, Loughborough LE11 2PY) which had customer parking. The customer car park was located to the right side of the restaurant along a side street, off the main road. Upon entering the side street, there was a narrow path which opened to a larger area of land. This open land did not have clearly defined lines, signage or gates to suggest - as later realised - the sections belonged to different establishments. Upon parking, none of the drivers at any point were issued a 'Notice to Driver', which assured the drivers of the vehicle that they had parked in the right customer car park. The land simply had A5 sized signs sparsely distributed along one wall. The details of the sign are unknown as the print was indistinguishable upon parking. The Claimant alleges the driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of the land and is therefore responsible for a penalty. The breach is described as "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" on Service Yard for 8-13 High Street, Loughborough, LE11 2PY. 

3. The Defendant became aware of the alleged contravention 2 years and 7 months later, in the form of a ‘Demand for Payment’ letter issued by the Claimant. Prior to the ‘Demand for Payment’ letter which alleges a sum of £160 owed, there was no ‘Notice to Keeper’ in the 2 years and 7 months, which completely violates the condition set out in Sch4, Section 6(1b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). Irrespective of whether a ‘Notice to Driver’ was issued, Sch4 Section 6(1a) of the POFA outlines the need for an ensuing ‘Notice to Keeper’ which has not been issued at any point by the Claimant. The ‘Demand for Payment’ correspondence abruptly sent 2 years and 7 months later without accurately following the due diligence outlined in Sch4 of the POFA, is suggestive of an attempt to scare the Defendant into payment while in violation of proper procedure. The ‘Demand for Payment’ was followed by a ‘Final Demand’ letter, ‘Letter Before Claim’ and a ‘Notification of Instruction’; each increasing in its hostility. While none of these letters satisfied the provisions outlined in Sch4, Sections 8 or 9 of the POFA. Therefore, the Defendant’s stance is that liability is not held due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA.

Nomad24

I now realise they are not allowed to send separate claims for different offences? They have sent two separate claims for different occasions. Would it suffice to write a defence for both and amending where necessary?

Redx

2 is just the first sentence , so as seen in the defence template post by coupon mad

The rest is 3 , followed by changing the above 3 to 4 , or split them further and renumber , because paragraphs are typically about 4 or 5 sentences

I do not believe that the claimant mentioned the word penalty , because it's a PCN , Parking Charge Notice , or invoice , definitely not a penalty

So edit the above , preferably into 4 or 5 concise paragraphs , plus decide if defending as keeper ( using POFA ) , keeper and driver  ( no POFA ) or Driver unknown because .......

Nomad24

Many thanks for the input!

Rewritten:

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

3.  During the periods of 2015-2018 the drivers of the vehicle frequented Fernandez Grillhouse (7 High St, Loughborough LE11 2PY) which had customer parking. The customer car park was located to the right side of the restaurant along a side street, off the main road. Upon entering the side street, there was a narrow path that opened to a larger area of land. This open land did not have clearly defined lines, signage or gates to suggest - as later realised - the sections belonged to different establishments.

4. Upon parking, none of the drivers recall a PCN (Parking Charge Notice) being served onsite to the vehicle, which assured the drivers of the vehicle that they had parked in the right customer car park. The land simply had A5 sized signs sparsely distributed along one wall. The details of the sign are unknown as the print was indistinguishable upon parking. The Claimant alleges the driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of the land and is therefore responsible for a PCN. The breach is described as "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" on Service Yard for 8-13 High Street, Loughborough, LE11 2PY. 

4. The Defendant became aware of the alleged contravention 2 years and 7 months later, in the form of a ‘Demand for Payment’ letter issued by the Claimant. Prior to the ‘Demand for Payment’ letter which alleges a sum of £160 owed, there was no ‘Notice to Keeper’ in the 2 years and 7 months, which completely violates the condition set out in Sch4, Section 6(1b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). 

5. The ‘Demand for Payment’ correspondence abruptly sent 2 years and 7 months later without accurately following the due diligence outlined in Sch4 of the POFA, is suggestive of an attempt to scare the Defendant into payment while in violation of proper procedure. The ‘Demand for Payment’ was followed by a ‘Final Demand’ letter, ‘Letter Before Claim’ and a ‘Notification of Instruction’; each increasing in its hostility. While none of these letters satisfied the provisions outlined in Sch4, Section 9 of the POFA. Therefore, the Defendant’s stance is that liability is not held due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA.