AOS done - i have 2 weeks for defence but confused about steps - pls advise

Coupon-mad

Might have been...!

mrstingy2022

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

mrstingy2022 said:

Mouse007 said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Mouse007 said:

DON'T admit to the permit being hidded - it's for the Claimant to prove their case, not for you to help them - this is a car crash waiting to happen

'hidded' that made me laugh 

That's what happeds when being nagged elsewhere whilst trying to type

I did use spoiler instead of quote which i was correcting
Well impressed how active this forum is

CM, the absolute and honoured expert, would normally be around, but I expect she's celebrating the seagull's epic win

CM is truly dedicated. Just like Sir Winston said "We shall fight on the beaches..." - similarly we are fighting "predatory ticketers"
I am going to share my knowledge whoever has this situation which will help the people around and to lighten the load from this exceptional forum. 
PS. not sure what segull epic win was - any chance somebody explain ?

mrstingy2022

Just for completeness i am showing here improved version - which might also be a help for somebody in the similar situation.
Just before i email scanned and signed pdf as attached to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk during working hours - would you be so kind to have a quick look?

1. Does anything at all needs modifications or adapting if the template except paragraphs  2 and 3. Its several pages and over my head to fully grasp. I'd rather not touch it than break it.(2nd post of https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 )
2. Is it good idea to split point 3 to 3, 4 and 5 as i  did and shown below
3. I added the statement about colleague who saw traffic controller "Colleague of the defendant can confirm this to the court."- i believe its important - is it worth keeping?
   
4. Once court process started can traffic company withdraw at any stage or do we need to go through all stages ?

Version 2 of the paragraph 2 and 3 of the defence is below:

2. Defendant admits to being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question

3. Defendant parked properly in the allocated space as allowed by the company that employs defendant. Defendant was given by his company a letter confirming employment and the right to park in the allocated space which can be presented later to the court

4.  On the date when the PCN ticket was issued a colleague of the defendant noticed a parking attendant checking the cars on the car park. This prompted the defendant to check their permit was on windscreen. While doing so the defendant observed that no PCN was on their car. The defendant then returned to his work office and told colleague that no parking ticket had been received. Colleague of the defendant can confirm this to the court.

5.  Defendant appealed against PCN ticket explaining his right to park there but his appeal was dismissed.

Coupon-mad

You need to add the part I suggested about 'ghost ticketing'.

mrstingy2022

Coupon-mad said:

You need to add the part I suggested about 'ghost ticketing'.

More than happy to mention ghost ticketing as this shows supreme ethics of these car park predators.
@Coupon-mad - any chance you check added point nr5 below if its understandable?
After that i am going to send it by email.
@Mouse007 massive thanks for your comments which suggested removing some parts but i would like to highlight ghost ticketing.

4 On the date when the PCN ticket was issued a colleague of the defendant noticed a parking attendant checking the cars on the car park. This prompted the defendant to check their permit was on windscreen. While doing so the defendant observed that no PCN was on their car. The defendant then returned to his work office and told colleague that no parking ticket had been received. Colleague of the defendant can confirm this to the court.
5 Several days after PCN ticket was issued defendant received it to his surprise. PCN was showing pictures with a loose piece of paper placed on the windscreen which must have been removed after taking the picture. Defendant believes that this is an example of ghost ticketing.

Mouse007

mrstingy2022 said:

5 Several days after PCN ticket was issued defendant received it to his surprise. PCN was showing pictures with a loose piece of paper placed on the windscreen which must have been removed after taking the picture. Defendant believes that this is an example of ghost ticketing.

Perhaps this reads better

5 Several days later the defendant was surprised to receive a PCN showing pictures with a loose piece of paper placed on the windscreen. This must have been removed after taking the picture. Defendant believes that this is an example of ghost ticketing.

Do note the the first use of PCN should be spelt out in full - Parking Charge Notice (PCN) - thereafter you can use PCN

Coupon-mad

Building on @Mouse007's wording but being far more robust about the accusation, I suggest:



4  On the date when a parking charge notice ('PCN') was purportedly issued, a colleague of the defendant noticed a person who appeared to be a typical private parking 'predatory ticketer' lurking around the cars in the car park. This prompted the defendant to go outside and check their permit was on windscreen, which it was.  Whilst doing so, the defendant observed that no PCN (nothing at all) was on their car.  The defendant then returned to his work office and told his colleague that no parking ticket had been received.  The Colleague of the defendant can confirm this to the court.

5   Several days later, the defendant was surprised to receive a PCN in the post, showing pictures with a loose piece of paper or card temporarily placed on the windscreen.  It doesn't quite appear to be a PCN but mimics one, for the photo opportunity. This must have been removed after taking the picture because the defendant went out to check the car at the material time that the rogue 'ticketer' was lurking.  The Defendant effectively caught the ticketer 'red handed' and believes that this is an example of 'ghost ticketing' at worst, or 'soft ticketing' at best; both of which are explained below and both are banned by the DVLA, as rogue practice.

6.  The VCS v Adam Burzynski case (full transcript will be provided) supports the argument that affixing a random piece of paper or card to a car windscreen, dressed up to mimic a PCN for photos, is an unfair business practice.   The defendant understands from research of similar cases, that VCS' current version ambiguously says on the one hand 'this is not a PCN' and calls itself a 'Privacy Notice' yet on the other hand invites the driver to go online where they can pay.

7.  If this had been left on the windscreen, this is known as 'soft ticketing' and stands in clear breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (misleading conduct) and allows the parking operator to obtain DVLA data too early, which represents a data breach.  It neither complies with para 8 nor para 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 ('the POFA').

8.  This Claimant's continued conduct - the use of ambiguous 'privacy notice/not a PCN' cards by VCS and even more so, 'ghost ticketing' (placing a notice on a windscreen for a photo then removing it before a driver can see it and appeal) is disingenuous claptrap, in flagrant breach of the mandatory DVLA KADOE data release rules.

9.  'Ghost' ticketing has always been banned (for obvious reasons) but five years ago, the DVLA told both parking Trade Bodies that 'soft ticketing' was also banned because it misleads people about liability and gives the driver no fair chance (normally 28 days) to pay or appeal before the registered keeper receives a notice about it.  This is against the POFA, which allows a driver a month; sufficient time to deal with the matter in cases where notice is placed on the windscreen by a ticketer on foot.  VCS are well aware of the Burzynski case that they lost, and know that 'ghost ticketing' and 'soft ticketing' are banned.  Further, the Government has confirmed the same ban on soft ticketing in the new incoming DLUHC statutory Code of Practice, which is only temporarily stalled regarding two outstanding issues (challenges about the capped level of charges and the ban on the 'extortion' of the false 'admin fee' enhancement), neither of which will change any other clauses.  The Claimant is urged to provide a witness statement from their rogue ticketer employee/agent, to explain their conduct to the court.

Mouse007

Coupon-mad said:

Building on @Mouse007's wording but being far more robust about the accusation, I suggest:

...

Nice, I like that. mrstingy2022 I think you are good to go, insert the above into the template format, renumber all subsequent paragraphs, make sure 2. says Registered Keeper and Driver. Due next Monday so you have plenty of time. Remember to file in office hours before 4pm by email.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  as per Judgment (re D name spelling):-

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES      CLAIMANT
                -and-
ADAM BURZYNSKI                            DEFENDANT

1505grandad

It seems that the Court is prone to A over T errors:-

"Mr Butzynski submits that the notice had all the hallmarks and requirements of a notice

to driver as required by paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 of the Act, namely it must specify

the vehicle, the land on which it was parked and the period of parking."