Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Johnersh

@Coupon-mad It needs a skelly. The joy with that is the witness statements get exchanged *before* the skelly. There's method here....

With this claim being "back to front" in terms of the usual course, the separation of fact and argument is likely to be helpful. And, of course, the facts are simply ridiculous IMHO.

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

I think 12 could be stronger.  It almost sounds at the end, like you are accepting that the Defendant denies the webform discussion ever happened.

They must have a record, you'd think. I'm not sure you need to acknowledge their flat denial.  You know it happened!

I've re-worded 12 to this:

12.      Upon returning to my computer after the aforementioned interaction, I immediately used the contact form on the Defendant’s website to make them aware of the contact I had with Mr Taylor as he had advised. Unfortunately, I didn’t screen record myself doing this action and the website gives no automated email response, in the absence of an automated email response from the website, the Defendants website makes it challenging to provide concrete proof of this communication.

The only sort of minimal proof I have is my browser history. One could ask: Why would I of visited the VCS website on the 15th of June if I didn't make this contact?

Johnersh

I'd just say that the contact form was used, but this is not my factual account to present.

Thereafter the o/p doesn't need to prove ongoing  discussion - the emails elicited from the SAR between the PPC and their parking chap evidence that.

I'd consider setting out the longhand with an abbreviation in brackets afterwards. Don't just assume the reader will be fully familiar with concepts like KADDOE.

Castle

Johnersh said:

I'd just say that the contact form was used, but this is not my factual account to present.

Thereafter the o/p doesn't need to prove ongoing  discussion - the emails elicited from the SAR between the PPC and their parking chap evidence that.

I'd consider setting out the longhand with an abbreviation in brackets afterwards. Don't just assume the reader will be fully familiar with concepts like KADDOE.

Or even KADOE

Umkomaas

One could ask: Why would I of visited the VCS website on the 15th of June if I didn't make this contact?

'have', not 'of'!

Anto_28

Umkomaas said:

One could ask: Why would I of visited the VCS website on the 15th of June if I didn't make this contact?

'have', not 'of'!

😂 its a frequent occurrence my of over have. Think were going to leave that line out, and just go with Johnersh suggestion of saying i did it

Coupon-mad

Exact words from Johnersh are a bit more than that, plus I've added a suggestion in bold:

The contact form was used, but this is not my factual account to present. Emails elicited from the Subject Access Request - showing communications between the Defendant and their parking employee - evidence that I did make contact. They would not have this record of a discussion with the employee otherwise, so the Defendant's denial that I contacted them (at para xx) is perplexing.

Anto_28

I'm not sure it'll fly @Coupon-mad, they made no log in the SAR of having received any contact from the website, which I know for a fact I did make, just seems convenient that they can't find it.

Heres the notes:

Pink: Permit discussion before 16th July when they claim they were first made aware of the permit

Blue: VCS appearing to try find alternate reasons to enforce, suggesting the permit might be from a business that has since closed/moved on

Green: A completely speculative claim by an office based worker, not a qualified parking operative. Absolutely no way the office worker would have known if you could read the details on the permit or not in the position it was in. I certainly could. Not sure what ROR means.

Johnersh

This has always been a case where the wording of the permit possibly wasn't visible, even if the permit itself probably was visible. That might be a breach of the parking terms, so the system notes are unsurprising. 

However, the breach is so minor (and time limited) as to be virtually inconsequential and the permit was inspected prior to a PCN being issued. That is how £100 can become capable of being a penalty here (but not in Beavis). That's an important distinction, not one ppc's generally are prepared to concede 

**The o/p doesn't need to evidence what the PPC later did or should have thought, just what HE did.**

At the hearing there can then be argument on what any evidence shows.

Anto_28

Johnersh said:

This has always been a case where the wording of the permit possibly wasn't visible, even if the permit itself probably was visible. That might be a breach of the parking terms, so the system notes are unsurprising. 

However, the breach is so minor (and time limited) as to be virtually inconsequential and the permit was inspected prior to a PCN being issued. That is how £100 can become capable of being a penalty here (but not in Beavis). That's an important distinction, not one ppc's generally are prepared to concede 

I think given its admitted on both sides that there has been 5 years (now 6) of compliance, a single 5 minute infringement (IF the permit details were not clearly visible which they were (subjective)) would been seen as an intent only to penalise me. Opportunistic. We'll know in the next month or so.

Quick Q - As we are submitting a Skeleton Argument, would this need to be sent no later than 14 days before the hearing if we intend to rely on it?



Latest WS draft:

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD                                  Claim No. xxxxxxx

BETWEEN

 

xxxxxxx

Claimant

- and -

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CLAIMANT

 

 

1.      I am xxxxxxx of xxxxxxx, and I am the Claimant who brought forth this claim and I am the Defendant against whom a part 20 counter claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.      In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My particulars of claim, reply to defence and defence to the part 20 counter claim are repeated and I will say as follows:

Facts and Sequence of events

3.      On the 15th June 2023 I parked my vehicle outside my place of work at the Victoria Quays Car Park, an action I have done on a regular basis for the 5 years I have been employed by my current employer.

4.      When exiting the vehicle to remove my dog from the rear seats, I left my parking permit on the armrest of the vehicle. While this was not the usual position for the permit, the permit was still clearly visible when viewing the car from the front through the front windscreen.

5.      Over the past 5 years, I have not received any parking charge notices (‘PCNs’) from the Defendant for parking at this location before.

6.      At 14:55 on the day stated above, Mr Scott Taylor, a patrol officer of the Defendant was seen taking photos of my vehicle by one of my work colleagues. He informed me and I went to speak to the patrol officer immediately.

7.      The patrol officer and I walked back to my car together as by the time I made it out the building he had already began walking away from my vehicle in the direction towards the exit of my workplace. Speaking to the patrol officer, I made him aware of the valid parking permit that was on display inside my vehicle that he had missed on first inspection.

8.      The evidence in Exhibit AH01 is presented showing the permit on display inside the front windscreen in the Defendant’s own evidence photos put before the court.

9.      As these photos were taken before I spoke to patrol office and were reproduced for the issuance of the PCN; the Defendant’s defence appears to contain an error because the Defendant speculatively claim that the permit was placed by me retrospectively.

10.   The patrol officer informed me that due to the details being sent to the Defendant already, I should contact the Defendant to have the ticket cancelled. At this point, only a Privacy Notice had been issued (Exhibit AH02), so I assumed when he mentioned the ticket being cancelled, he meant to avoid a PCN being issued at all. We stood together as the patrol officer took further evidence photographs. He told me that these would be provided to the Defendant.

11.   8 minutes after sending the initial vehicle details to the Defendant, the patrol officer sent an update to the Defendant making them aware there was a parking permit as evidenced in Exhibit AH03. The Defendant’s account of events appear to be inconsistent with this evidence where the defence states that details of the permit were only provided on the 16th July 2023.

12.   Upon returning to my computer after the aforementioned interaction, I immediately used the contact form on the Defendant’s website to make them aware of the contact I had with Mr Taylor as he had advised.

13.   5 days after the alleged contravention, the Defendant inputted the Vehicle Registration Mark from my vehicle into the DVLA Keeper At Date Of Event (‘KADOE’) system to obtain my personal details as evidenced in Exhibit AH04.

14.   The Defendant who had obtained my details against DVLA KADOE rules (Exhibit AH05), then chose to issue a PCN to me on the 21st June 2023, further breaching the GDPR by processing my personal data with no legitimate purpose.

15.   I appealed the PCN on the 28th June 2023.

16.   The Defendant responded to the appeal on the 5th July 2023 asking for a copy of the permit to be sent to them.

17.   I complied with the request, sending a copy of the permit the very same day.

18.   On the 17th July 2023, the Defendant wrote to the Claimant informing him that the appeal had been rejected.

19.   On the 31st July I made a Subject Access Request (‘SAR’) to the Defendant attempting to have more information disclosed to me surrounding the issuance of the PCN.

20.   Amongst the information received on the 31st August 2023, I found instances of the permit being discussed internally by the Defendant’s staff, both before the PCN was issued, and before they ever went to the patrol officer to obtain the photo he had taken as evidenced in Exhibit AH06. The Defendant’s account of events also appear to be inconsistent with this evidence as the defence states that details of the permit were only provided on the 16th July 2023.

21.   I have been steadfast in my refusal to pay the charge levied by the defendant. Further demands were issued by the Defendant on 17th August 2023 (DEMAND FOR PAYMENT) and 4th September 2023 (FINAL DEMAND).

22.   A letter before claim was issued by the Defendant to me on the 14th September 2023.

23.   I had communications with the Defendant to try resolve the situation which included visiting their offices to speak to them personally. I spoke with a gentleman who was unable to help as he was not from the litigation department and I therefore handed him a letter to pass on to the legal department. All of this came to no avail with the Defendant being dismissive and refusing to enter into any discussions. This closed book attitude being something I came up against on many occasions with multiple correspondence making me aware the Defendant had no intention of listening to any further discussions around the PCN with wording such as “We will not acknowledge or respond to any further correspondence disputing the charge”.

24.   I issued my own letter before action on the 2nd October 2023 giving the Defendant 14 days to acknowledge and apologise for the GDPR breaches, to cancel the PCN and offering them a settlement to pay a reduced sum of compensation for the GDPR breaches. This was responded to with a single line dismissive response as evidenced in Exhibit AH07.

25.   On the 25th Oct 2023 I received a Notice of Instruction from ELMS Legal. The Defendant has therefore shared my personal data with a third party company, which is a further breach of the GDPR and DPA 2018. This caused a heightened level of distress to me as I was now being contacted by a registered law firm. I sought professional legal advice to understand what options I had.

26.   During this time, I also engaged in communications with ELMS Legal to dispute the charge relaying the information I had sent to the Defendant. During the communications, I received a written admission that the Defendant knew the permit was in the car as evidenced by Exhibit AH08. I was also told if I wanted to dispute the matter I could do so in the court proceeding they would shortly commence.

27.   On the 30th October 2023 (16 days after the deadline outlined on the letter before action to the defendant and 5 days after receiving the Notice of Instruction from ELM Legal), I issued a claim against the Defendant using MCOL taking the positive action needed to bring an end the situation where I believed the defendant was misusing my personal data for profit.