VCS Fluttering Ticket / Valid Permit - We won...

Coupon-mad

Please re-post what you want us to review as you are now on page 12 and we won't have time to go back in the thread looking.

Lagroid

Coupon-mad said:

Please re-post what you want us to review as you are now on page 12 and we won't have time to go back in the thread looking.

Uploaded a fresh copy here: https://docdro.id/yiWT1K4 

Much appreciated all

Lagroid

Hi all,

I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on my removing paragraphs where I focus on the 'flimsiness' of the parking permit housing, such as this: 

"Following the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), I have taken the added precaution of securing the parking permit to the front window using tape, to ensure that it does not become detached again. However, exhibit 05, a video captured on the 17th of May 2023, clearly demonstrates the process of the permit being detached from the tape and my subsequent endeavour to reattach it to the window. From this video, it is evident that there is little, if any, adhesive remaining on the permit, rendering it almost impossible to affix securely to the window.

This tangible evidence clearly signifies that over time, the permit housing, as supplied by Parkdean Resorts, has become unfit for its intended purpose. It is a factor entirely outside my control, and thus it is unreasonable to expect me to bear the brunt of its failings. The housing is designed to securely hold the permit and allow it to be displayed appropriately. If it is unable to do so reliably, through no fault of my own, then it is illogical and unfair to place the responsibility upon me, as the driver."

What is the general advice when it comes to stating something (a parking permit housing in this case) isn't my responsibility?

Happy to leave it in if that's the best thing to do.

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

Frustration of contract springs to mind = something out of your control (indeed only within the C's control) caused the issue, not your conduct by agreement.

Also look at Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is applicable to unfair contracts.  Placing a disproportionate burden on a consumer to do something, yet the trader has failed to keep their end of the bargain, in this case by failing to supply a permit that is fit for purpose in warm weather.

It is almost impossible to comply with the term to display, and this cannot be a matter of strict liability with all the burden falling upon the consumer, because UK consumer law protects against unfair burdens like that - ref the CRA 2015.

A professional parking operator could easily dispense with flimsy permits altogether if they are unable to supply one that's fit for purpose.  If they wanted to be fair to genuine permit holders they could instead keep permitted VRMs on an electronic exempt list. But that wouldn't make any money.

Lagroid

Coupon-mad said:

Frustration of contract springs to mind = something out of your control (indeed only within the C's control) caused the issue, not your conduct by agreement.

Also look at Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is applicable to unfair contracts.  Placing a disproportionate burden on a consumer to do something, yet the trader has failed to keep their end of the bargain, in this case by failing to supply a permit that is fit for purpose in warm weather.

It is almost impossible to comply with the term to display, and this cannot be a matter of strict liability with all the burden falling upon the consumer, because UK consumer law protects against unfair burdens like that - ref the CRA 2015.

A professional parking operator could easily dispense with flimsy permits altogether if they are unable to supply one that's fit for purpose.  If they wanted to be fair to genuine permit holders they could instead keep permitted VRMs on an electronic exempt list. But that wouldn't make any money.

Fantastic, thanks for the pointer on that Coupon. 

Snakes_Belly

Agree with CM that they could have a white list.

Lagroid

Makes sense. Their signage even mentions ANPR. To me that implies a whitelist would be in operation. There is in fact no cameras at the site

Lagroid

Another update: I've just received the Witness Statement from VCS. Their WS is a joke and ignores key points in my defence. They don't even acknowledge that my permit has fallen from the window, just refer to T&Cs 

first question: Would this be of interest to the community? Happy to photocopy and share a redacted copy if it can help other people.

second question: They've made me a reduced offer of £200 and said if I refuse they'll seek an additional £220 at court for legal fees. However, in the PoC, their legal fees were £50 or so. Can they change this?

Thanks, 

Boat_to_Bolivia

No they can't. Just ignore their reduced offer and their idle threats.

Fruitcake

Please do show us their WS, redacted o.f personal data but please leave in anything that is already in the public domain such as the name of the paralegal who has produced the WS.

Please tell us what you have redacted, and if VCS have redacted anything as well. It's okay for example for them to redact commercially sensitive information such as how much they get paid. It is not acceptable to the courts to redact such things as sections that might support the defendant's position, nor is it accepatble to redact names, signatures, and dates on their alleged landowner contract.