Vcs letter before claim

Pants182

Hi all,

I've used this site before back in 2021. I have had a pcn from VCS on the 12/6/2017, several letters have been sent to me, including a letter before claim which I think I got advise from here now. the first LBC was from bwlegal dated 6/12/21 VCS dated 24/9/21. I sent a letter both times that presented my case, stating i was the registered keeper, not admitting or denning as a driver, think i got the template of this site, but might be wrong, need to assess the letter which is saved to another computer. i then received an evidence pack, didn't receive this on the other LBC response to my letter. the provided a contract and letters they had sent over time. 
I have now been sent the county court claim form sated 21st January 2022. I have filled in online the acknowledgement of service as per your threat. I now believe I have to submit my defence and I can see a template on here to do that.  Would someone be able to look over it before i submit and can someone confirm who i need to send this to the court or the ELMS, can this be done online. 

I will keep reading the threads, the problem i have is time, I work and have young children and struggle to get any time to do stuff like this. everyone is saying just pay it but i feel it is so wrong!

i also contacted my local MP back in October regarding this but they just didn't help. 

thank you so much for reading this

Redx

Email a SAR to the DPO at VCS attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data

Post your proposal for only paragraphs 2 and 3 below for critique , so only the paragraphs that you have changed , not the rest of the template

Eventually you will be emailing your Defence pdf to the CCBC in Northampton

Pants182

DPO? sorry what is this.

I haven't stated who is the driver, in paragraph 2 do I need to?

thank you, got pick up then swimming run so wont be until later tonight or tomorrow that I can post anything. thanks again, much appreciated:)

KeithP

Pants182 said:

I have now been sent the county court claim form sated 21st January 2022. I have filled in online the acknowledgement of service as per your threat. I now believe I have to submit my defence and I can see a template on here to do that.

For the moment I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 25th January. Please confirm that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over 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 by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

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'.


DPO = Data Protection Officer.

Pants182

Filed an Acknowledgment of Service today, i would like to have the defence done within the next week if possible as i keep thinking about it and its keeping me awake
for actions for now:
1.Email a SAR to the DPO at VCS attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data
2. Get reading https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
anything else i need to do?

so much easier on a laptop rather than the little phone I was using last time:)
 

Redx

Pants182 said:

Filed an Acknowledgment of Service today, i would like to have the defence done within the next week if possible as i keep thinking about it and its keeping me awake
for actions for now:
1.Email a SAR to the DPO at VCS attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law to obtain all your data
2. Get reading https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585
anything else i need to do?

so much easier on a laptop rather than the little phone I was using last time:)
 

Everything else in my earlier reply , like reading other recent court claim threads for inspiration and then post your proposed draft of your 2 homework paragraphs below

Pants182

i am worried I've left this too late,  needs to be done by 23/2/22 by 4pm one of the ppl said above. I've just had so much on with little ones and don't feel I have the time to pursue this to the end. my husband is not happy and said i just should have paid the £100, i am thinking i should have done now but it £245 now so have to gove it a go!

I've also just noticed looking at the pic the claimant have provided, it shows be parked on double yellow which after a quick google shows that's against the law for stopping as well :'(    i presume this will go in their favour.

the contract they have given me is dated 25/7/13 and says it only fixed for 24 months, so there should be another I presume

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

3.  The Defendant confirms she was the driver on the date . The date in question of the incident is 12/6/2017 and the first correspondence a parking charge notice was issued by the claimant came over a month later on 14/7/2017 although it had an issue date on the 16/6/2017. The defendant did not park as stated in the claim, the defendant stopped from the time of 12.39.27 to 12.39,39, so 13 seconds. The defendant stated there was no signage where she stopped. Due to the constant flow of traffic the only signage that was readable was of eye height and normal size signage.  The defendant states that this led to an abundance of threatening letters and phone calls causing harassment by the Claimant. Furthermore the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. 

6. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.'  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of £60, described as ‘damages’, which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

KeithP

Pants182 said:

I haven't stated who is the driver, in paragraph 2 do I need to?

Although nobody answered your question when you asked it three weeks ago, the Protection of Freedoms Act gives more protection to a keeper who was not driving than an admitted driver.

For that reason it might not be a good idea to admit to being the driver.

Pants182

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

3.  The Defendant confirms she was the driver on the date . The date in question of the incident is 12/6/2017 and the first correspondence a parking charge notice was issued by the claimant came over a month later on 14/7/2017 although it had an issue date on the 16/6/2017. The defendant did not park as stated in the claim, the defendant stopped from the time of 12.39.27 to 12.39,39, so 13 seconds. The defendant stated there was no signage where she stopped. Due to the constant flow of traffic the only signage that was readable was of eye height and normal size signage.  The defendant states that this led to an abundance of threatening letters and phone calls causing harassment by the Claimant. 

6. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.'  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of £60, described as ‘damages’, which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

KeithP

Sorry if I've missed any changes, but isn't that exactly the same as your earlier post?