[Successful] Court Hearing v VCS in Residential Car Park - Permission from space owner

GropplerZorn

I’ve recently received a Claim form from VCS Limited for not displaying a ticket on June 2018 in a gated residential car park where I used to live. Before this, I had a LOC back in June 2023, but as I’ve moved several times over the last 5 years, it has escalated to the Court Claim phase now, without me receiving any other letters in between.

I’ve submitted my AOS, as per the instructions here and I am drafting a defence, which needs to be submitted by 7th July.

Unfortunately, I haven’t received a POC (it may have been sent to an old address) so I don’t know what information they hold other than the minimal details on the CF and the LOC. Should I start a SAR with VCS or DCB Legal at this point or is it irrelevant before submitting my defence?

Now, onto the specifics of my case: the building management won’t do anything about it, I know residents who have complained about PCN in the same building to no avail, so I need to defend this myself. A fellow resident defended thousands of £ claimed for not displaying a permit over several months in the same building, although my specifics are slightly different.

My specific defence is that the owners of another flat on the premises had allowed me to use their parking space. The owners have agreed to provide a witness statement to that effect. The parking space in question is allocated to that particular flat, although I can’t be 100% certain that I had actually parked in that specific space over 5 years ago. I would normally have displayed the permit, but for some reason I neglected on that occasion. This incurred two PCNs on the same day (amounting to £160 each - £320 total). Are there grounds to contest issuing two tickets for virtually the same offence? I don’t have the timestamps of the individual tickets currently. Should I also contest the inflated charge of £160, as per other VCS/DCB Legal claims? I have no proof that they are adding Recovery Fees without the POC.

Last question for now: Do I accept responsibility as driver? I was the driver, but is it better to not accept responsibility as driver at this stage?

 I am scouring through posts/cases here, but if you think any specific cases are relevant in my case, I would be grateful for any advice. 

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim from your Claim Form - with all personal detail hidden of course?

Coupon-mad

Doing a SAR is not in the NEWBIES thread because it hasn't been the advice for a year. DON'T.

GropplerZorn

Thank you for responding so quickly. I've forgotten to attach the Claim Form in my original post. 
Claim date is 4th June. 

I've completed the AOS on 13th June. According to my calculations the deadline for submitting the Defence is 7th July. 

Thank you for the info on not doing a SAR. 

KeithP

GropplerZorn said:

Claim date is 4th June. 

I've completed the AOS on 13th June. According to my calculations the deadline for submitting the Defence is 7th July. 

Almost right with your Defence filing deadline but nothing is ever due on a Sunday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

How come you got 2 PCNs issued on the same date? Did you drive out then return later? Was there anything left on the windscreen?  PCNs or some red packet thingy?

If you'd replied slowly to the LBC you could very likely have strung it out and got this past the 6 years and they couldn't have issued a claim.  Very sad to see that time-barred date so close!  It was definitely within your reach to avoid a claim had you responded in May. 

GropplerZorn

It is unfortunate, but I've had no other mail since the LoC in June 2023. As I say, it may have gone to a different older  address. 

Having read through some of the posts last year I thought it's best to leave it until I actually get the LBC, but perhaps I was wrong. 

It's difficult to remember if I had left the space and came back - it is possible, as I was routinely using my friend's parking place (displaying the permit usually). If the car had been left there all day without having moved it at all, could they be in breach of their own terms for issueing two tickets on the same day? I can't find anything on their website or BPA code of conduct that is relevant. 

There probably were two PCNs there, which I may have filed in some attic years ago.. not something I can get to now sadly. 


Do you have any thoughts on the following two points? 

1. Should I also contest the inflated charge of £160, as per other VCS/DCB Legal claims? I have no proof that they are adding Recovery Fees without the POC.

2. Do I accept responsibility as driver? I was the driver, but is it better to not accept responsibility as driver at this stage?

I will come back with a draft this weekend, and any feedback would be much appreciated. 

GropplerZorn

Having read the defence template again, I can see that paragraphs 6-19 cover this my first question. The LoC I received also states that the £320 covers the cost of the original PCNs and debt recovery costs. I guess there is nothing specific I need to add.

Coupon-mad

GropplerZorn said:

Having read the defence template again, I can see that paragraphs 6-19 cover this my first question. The LoC I received also states that the £320 covers the cost of the original PCNs and debt recovery costs. I guess there is nothing specific I need to add.

Not about that, no.

But your second question is also answered in the Template Defence commentary about what to put in your paragraphs 2 and 3.

Only say you were driving if you know you were the only driver. Be truthful. If you were, you were.

I suspect VCS put red packets on your windscreen which are a hybrid PCN that doesn't comply with the POFA 2012.

And you can certainly challenge two PCNs on the same day which isn't allowed.

GropplerZorn

Thank you, this is really helpful.

GropplerZorn

Good evening, 

With the deadline to submit my defence looming (Monday 8th), I finally managed to create a draft. I realise this is rather late, but any feedback would be very much appreciated. 

I have also read about the inbox for Court Claim Responses only receiving emails during 'working hours', although I have a feeling this was before they updated their email address to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk? I will submit one on Sunday and if I don't receive a response first thing on Monday, I will send again. 

Thank you for your answers so far and for your many many hours spent helping people like me. 

I've highlighted my additions to the template with bold text (paras 3-6 and 12). 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was a resident and tenant of Flat [XXXX, XXXXX] Apartments, [Address + Postcode]

4. The Defendant sought alternative parking arrangements on the premises on 03/07/2018, because the parking space associated with their own flat was occupied by another vehicle.

5. The Defendant had secured an agreement with the leaseholder of [Flat XXX] of [XXXX] Apartments to use of their allocated parking space on 03/07/2018.

6. The Defendant does not acknowledge any contractual obligation whatsoever with the Claimant, having obtained permission from the leaseholder of [Flat XXX] to exercise their exclusive right to park in the allocated space on 03/07/2018.

7. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

9. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

12. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

13. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

14. The Particulars of Claim detail two separate Parking Charges, referred to simply by their respective dates of issue. Since both Parking Charges were issued on 03/07/2018, without any specific timestamps given in the Particulars of Claim, as far as the Defendant is aware both charges were issued for the same alleged breach of terms. This is a further attempt at inflating the charges to extortionate proportions.

I then continue with the rest of the paragraphs, exactly as in the original draft posted on this forum.