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

Lagroid

Good afternoon,

On the 29/11/2022 I received the LBC from VCS (you can read about it in an earlier post on this thread).

Following the advice in the newbies thread, I sent a letter to VCS:

"Dear Sir or Madam, I'm writing to inform you that I am seeking debt advice, but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.

I have also sent a SAR to dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk, as stated in the SAR, data protection law required you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

I'm also requesting a copy of the contract with the flowing from the landowner that you intend to use, should you rely on a claim. I'm asking for this evidence to narrow the issues, as required under the pre-action protocol. Kind regards"

I sent the signed letter (which included reference numbers listed on the LBC), recorded delivery to the return address on the LBC. It arrived and was signed for on the 16th December.

Today I've received a letter from ELMS Legal saying they've put me on notice and have been instructed to collect the debt.

They reference the LBC and it being compliant with the pre-action protocol. My question is, has VCS ignored my 'on hold' request and if they have will this look bad for them when it ultimately goes to court? Thanks,

Coupon-mad

No, it will make no difference.  Respond to daft old Elms with the same thing you sent to VCS.

Lagroid

Coupon-mad said:

No, it will make no difference.  Respond to daft old Elms with the same thing you sent to VCS.

Will it be decremental to me if I don't respond to Elms? Recorded delivery is £7, and I don't see the point in posting a letter if I don't have proof it was sent & received.

I've already got proof I've sent the letter to VCS at the time the LBC was received. Weeks later, Elms contacting me just feels like there's a disconnect between them and VCS. I hope the point I'm getting at is coming across here? My request for the case to be put 'on-hold' has been received, is the point I'm making. Would a judge simply ignore or not care if that was ignored? 

Edit... I've found a contact email on their website, I will use that. 

Coupon-mad

No-one EVER advised you to use recorded delivery. In fact if you search the forum we tell people not to, and why not!

Lagroid

Coupon-mad said:

No-one EVER advised you to use recorded delivery. In fact if you search the forum we tell people not to, and why not!

I didn't say anybody advised me to use recorded delivery. I did because VCS had no email and just a return address. The instructions in the Newbies thread on the LBC stage didn't advise against recorded delivery. 

Coupon-mad

It was a waste of money. Did they even sign for it?  Just use normal post to Elms and get a free certificate of posting receipt from the PO counter (and keep it safely stapled to a printed copy of your letter).  It is best not to ignore Elms.

Lagroid

Coupon-mad said:

It was a waste of money. Did they even sign for it?  Just use normal post to Elms and get a free certificate of posting receipt from the PO counter (and keep it safely stapled to a printed copy of your letter).  It is best not to ignore Elms.

They did sign, and it was during the strike period, it was my thinking that 1st class might not get there in time.

I'll follow your advice for Elms. Thank you

Lagroid

Good morning,

I'm currently drafting my defence against the fluttering ticket case I've discussed within this thread.

I have two questions I was looking for some clarity on:

1 - I've went back to the car park, and noticed that there's no signage on entry to the car park. Signs are placed in front of bays (about 1 in every 10 bays). Does the lack of signage on entry warrant a defence point?
2 - I've been looking over some other fluttering ticket defence examples throughout the forum. I've seen somebody mention that the sign doesn't state that a ticket must be displayed "at all times". The signage on my car park, does state that. Assuming I should avoid referencing the wording on signs as that's the case?

The crux of my defence is going to have to circle around the following:
1 - I have a valid parking permit, as I'm an employee. This was shown to VCS at the earliest opportunity. They have a copy of it after submitting my SAR.
2- VCS & ELMS Legal ignored my request for the land owner information, so I could 'narrow the issues as required under the pre-action protocol'.
3 - The ticket was visible from the windscreen (technically), as it was in the passenger footwell (should I avoid this one?)
4 - The housing for the permit (supplied by the business) isn't suitable. Not sticky, and during hot weather is comes off easily. I've since had to tape it to my windscreen.
5 - Focus on de minmis - I think something outside of my control (permit coming off window hours after parking), is unreasonable and doesn't warrant a £100 fine.

If the community could help with my two questions and any pointers on the crux of my defence, I'd be grateful. 

Lagroid

First draft (pasted, excuse the formatting) - feedback appreciated 

Claim No.: xxxxx 

Between 

Vehicle Control Services Ltd 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX 

(Defendant) 

 

DEFENCE 

 

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into – by conduct or otherwise – whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location. 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

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

1. The vehicle in question XXXXX was parked in XXXX on the date in question 04/08/2022. A valid parking permit supplied by Parkdean Resorts was visible on the windscreen of the vehicle, located in the top left corner (passenger side). 
    
   The Defendant returned to the vehicle 9 hours after parking and a ‘privacy notice’ (issue time not specified) card was affixed to the windscreen. 
    
   On closer inspection, it was found that the parking permit had fallen from the windscreen into the passenger side footwell, facing the correct way up. 
    
   With no PCN being issued which include details or a reference number, the Defendant had to wait for a NTK (Notice to Keeper) to arrive via post to contact the Claimant at the earliest opportunity and explain the situation. A polite request was made to cancel the PCN which was unfortunately denied. The NTK included a charge of £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. 

1. The Claimant and ELMS Legal, representing the Claimant both ignored a request from the Defendant for the contract with the flowing to help identify the landowner to narrow the issues, as required under the pre-action protocol. 
    

1. The Defendant has a valid parking permit which was correctly displayed in the front windscreen at the time of parking the vehicle. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved from the windscreen to the passenger footwell. 
    

1. It is unreasonable to make the Defendant responsible for the possibility that: 

1. A change in temperature within the vehicle may have caused the plastic housing to warp, causing the permit to fall from the window.  

1. The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between parked vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended. 

1. A passer-by may have leaned on the vehicle, when passing by or squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle. 
    

1. None of the scenarios outlined in point 6 are within a driver’s control (the Defendant would be absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or an external factor outside of anyone’s control was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated. 
    

1. Notwithstanding the above points, the plastic housing is flimsy, warped and certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be aware of the problem, which has become known as “fluttering tickets”. Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide adequate tickets/permits (e.g., C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot). 
    

1. The signage states the use of ANPR cameras, which clearly indicates that the Claimant could fix the “fluttering ticket” problem on this site. Employees park their vehicles here daily, meaning the ANPR technology could be used, instead of cashing in on drivers’ misfortune from a flimsy unsuitable parking permit housing causing the permit to fall from the windscreen. 
    
   I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. 

Le_Kirk

If that is a defence, it is way too long. Keep it to short punchy legal/technical arguments and save the narrative for the witness statement stage.  Your statement of truth conversely, is too short; search for the  correct one. Are you basing your defence on the template?