VCS Bristol Aiport claim - not driver and no PCN received

Fruitcake

I'll have a more thorough look later, but you need to do a thorough check of spelling and grammar.

For example, Para 2 ... (including stopping a pedestrian crossings ...)

You could mention after para 5 that Excel and VCS are sister companies with the same owner, so it is inconceivable to believe that VCS were unaware of the Excel v Smith appeal judgment.

Make sure you slip in the word, "persuasive" when referring to any appeal case.

Fruitcake

Has the claimant at any point stated that BA Lt consider the airport byelaws to be obsolete?

Have you received any communications from Excel Parking Services Ltd?

notonmywatchDCBVCS

Fruitcake said:

Has the claimant at any point stated that BA Lt consider the airport byelaws to be obsolete?

Have you received any communications from Excel Parking Services Ltd?

No - I have had no communication whatsoever from VCS, or indeed Excel.

First I knew of this was when I received the DCB letter of outstanding debt (I received no PCN or follow up from VCS prior to this) and DCB's subsequent escalations. DCB have failed to communicate with me either (I ignored their first letter as suggested in the various guides here and then emailed them after their letter of propsed legal action to say I had not received a PCN and was not the driver on the date of the alleged breach, they have not asked and I have not disclosed the driver's identity but I was demonstrably not near Bristol Airport on the date they claim the "breach" happened) - they simply came back with a request to scrape my personal data claiming they needed to "verify" my identity for data protection purposes, which I denied saying they could respond to the points raised without that information. They did not and simply issued the claim.

No response from OTPP (as expected) and Bristol Aiport declined the opportunity to get involved either (again, as expected).

notonmywatchDCBVCS

A quick update following the mandatory pre-court mediation session last week. They offered to settle for £200, I told them I would accept a payment in recognition of my costs to date and an admission on their part of unreasonable conduct / apology. Needless to say we could not find agreement!
Interestingly they did confirm during this that they would be relying on POFA to pursue me as keeper and that their contract with Bristol Airport "makes clear their right to claim against me"- but would not debate the various defects in this approach that my defence make clear. This is the most I have heard on the basis for their claim so far beyond the brief / useless / generaic POC initially sent to me. They would not even confirm that they would send me the PCN that I have never received and that they claim to have initially sent!
So I guess we proceed on to evidence submission and a potential court date (in the absence of their typical late discontinuation).
Query is, given late discontinuation is their MO, can I force the issue of unreasonable conduct on their part and claim my costs to date?

Coupon-mad

Bit of a gamble and costs a fee:

You could make a N244 application with a Draft Order for the claim to be struck out, on the basis that VCS know you were not the driver and know that Sch4 of the POFA cannot apply at an Airport (as it is land under statutory control and specifically defined as 'not relevant land' in the POFA).

They are knowingly pursuing the wrong person with no prospects of success and lied to the Mediator by saying that the POFA applies when it is indisputable that it does not.  However, this meritless claim has caused the Defendant costs and the Defendant is aware that this Claimant is known to waste court time then discontinue (leaving intimidated victims out of pocket, which is an abuse of the court system).

See attached Draft Order, proof of Defendant's costs and the appeal case of VCS v Edward which is on all fours with the hopelessly pleaded cause of action in the extant case.

The Defendant seeks an order to strike the Claim out and award costs including the N244 application fee; in the alternative an 'unless' order for the Claimant to answer why they are pursuing a registered keeper who was not driving (despite having lost that very point on appeal in VCS v Edward, therefore the question of lack of keeper liability in a 'non-POFA' case is settled). In the event of failure to satisfy this point by xx/xx/2024 (or in the event of filing a notice of discontinuance) the Claim will stand struck out and the Claimant will be liable for the Defendant's costs of £xxx 

Fruitcake

VCS are not normally known for discontinuations, late or otherwise, unlike some PPCs. That doesn't mean they won't discontinue when they see your evidence, but don't hold your breath.

Proving unreasonable conduct is a very high bar to reach, so I don't think you can force anything at the moment.

What you could do is send a drop-hands offer, stating that since the site is not relevant land because byelaws apply, and include proof you could not have been the driver, their claim is bound to fail, and then state that you will claim costs for unreasonable behaviour and for data breaches.
See what others say. If you do decide to action the above, do NOT use the words, "without prejudice" otherwise you won't be able to show it in court.

notonmywatchDCBVCS

Update for anyone interested - I complained to DVLA regarding the use of KADOE by VCS to obtain my details. After some back and forth about whether VCS were relying on POFA at the airport (which was settled by providing a copy of the POC in which VCS state keeper liability is being pursued under POFA) I have now received the below (see next post). NB the DVLA have gotten themselves confused regarding which airport we were talking about, but given byelwas apply at Bristol as they do at Leeds then the point is still made.

So they can only rely on pursuing the driver, which I was not... I'm quite looking forward to this getting to court and a judge being able to give them "what for", although I suspect it will not.

It blows my mind that they might simply discontinue and avoid any fall-out from their intentional dishonesty and attempts to intimidate me by abusing the court process...!

Should I report DCB to the Law Society do you think for dishonest issuance of POC?

notonmywatchDCBVCS

Text of the correspondence with DVLA:

"I have contacted Vehicle Control Services Limited again, they confirmed that they do not rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) at Leeds Bradford Airport due to the presence of byelaws governing the area. The airport does not meet the criteria to be classified as "relevant land" under the applicable section of the Act. To support this, they provided a copy of the issued Parking Charge Notice which shows no reference to POFA, they also confirmed that additional notices also made no mention of POFA.

"It appears an oversight arose by Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) when the case was transferred to them as their legal partners, unfortunately DCBL incorrectly cited POFA on the claim form. Vehicle Control Services Limited have since liaised with DCBL, and advised them of this oversight, and also instructed them to ensure that POFA is not referenced in any future cases related to Leeds Bradford Airport or any others that is not defined as relevant land.

"Regarding your specific case, Vehicle Control Services Limited are taking corrective action and intend to apply to amend the claim form to remove any references to POFA as the basis for the claim."

Coupon-mad

"Amend the Claim form"...LOL!

That'll cost them a pretty penny to apply to do AND you can object to them being allowed relief from sanctions to re-plead their case on a completely different basis.

Well done for getting more than the 'BAU' fob off letter from the DVLA. Most unusual.

You seem like a very tenacious person so by all means, report DCB Legal to the SRA (not the Law Society, as you aren't their client).

notonmywatchDCBVCS

So an update: hearing had been scheduled for 26 February, with evidence submission on 15 January. I was getting rather excited, if I am honest, about being able to haul these cowboys over the coals in front of a judge (despite being told by both the DVLA and the SRA to amend the claim form to strike out any reference to POFA, they had failed to do so), but, sadly, I received their notice to discontinue today - technically it requires the judge to agree but given the logjam in the courts I expect there is no real hope that they may insist on getting them to court give them a telling off! LOL

Guessing I can let this lie now, but I could be tempted vex them further if anyone knew of a way to hold them to account on this?