Defence Help Needed - DCB Legal/Vehicle Control Services

BTS_mom

Hello all,

I've been reading up the forum quite a bit after I've received the NTK but unfortunately only after having made the appeal to VCS and they've now identified me as the driver. I've subsequently made a complaint to the landowner but they (hospital) dould not do anything with the car park being private land. The claim form has now arrived and I'll be doing the AoS in the next day and I'm now drafting up my defence. I have no experience in court or legal matters therefore any pointers from the forum experts are very much appreciated.

Background to my situation as follows:

• I went to Whytenshawe Hospital to visit a friend who was hospitalised.
• The hospital car park was full so I had to go to a private car park nearby, managed by VCS
• The private car park was full so I was driving around the car park to find a parking space, including just waiting in the car for a space to become available. The driving around and wait time was probably 10-12 minutes.
• I paid for the two hour stay and left within two hours. Little that I know that there is the 10 minute upon entry rule to pay and now I'm getting a claim for not paying within the time allowed.

I attach below the NTK and claim form


I have produced the draft including the additional Chan v Akande section and now need to add the defence wording in place of the "Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one"

I think I can explain my situation based on the background above but may need a steer on challenging the POC one by one. 

As part of my defence do I challenge them to demonstrate which one they are claiming for i.e. not paying for the ticket, or not paying within the time allowed?

Also, do I make reference to similar stories in national news for example www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2p57zdzw9o , www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czenn548x1no to strengthen my case? (Apologies being a newbie I cannot post hyperlinks)

Any reference to previous similar defence where I can use as a guidance would be appreciated as well.

Thanking all of you in advance.

Car1980

The particulars seem quite clear, so ignore Chan etc.

Newspaper articles are for the witness statement, so wait to include those.

Just use the standard defence but show us what you are putting for paragraph 3.

If you are waiting to park you haven't parked - see https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/unparalleled-legal-victory-defining-the-true-meaning-of-parking

An analogy would be if walk into a restaurant and they say a table will be ready in 10 minutes, you would wait at the bar. Not outside on the pavement in the pouring rain.

1505grandad

Do you have any copies of the signs (contract) either from your own records or the ppc website re your case?

Coupon-mad

BTS_mom said:

Hello all,

I've been reading up the forum quite a bit after I've received the NTK but unfortunately only after having made the appeal to VCS and they've now identified me as the driver. I've subsequently made a complaint to the landowner but they (hospital) dould not do anything with the car park being private land. The claim form has now arrived and I'll be doing the AoS in the next day and I'm now drafting up my defence. I have no experience in court or legal matters therefore any pointers from the forum experts are very much appreciated.

Background to my situation as follows:

• I went to Whytenshawe Hospital to visit a friend who was hospitalised.
• The hospital car park was full so I had to go to a private car park nearby, managed by VCS
• The private car park was full so I was driving around the car park to find a parking space, including just waiting in the car for a space to become available. The driving around and wait time was probably 10-12 minutes.
• I paid for the two hour stay and left within two hours. Little that I know that there is the 10 minute upon entry rule to pay and now I'm getting a claim for not paying within the time allowed.

I attach below the NTK and claim form


I have produced the draft including the additional Chan v Akande section and now need to add the defence wording in place of the "Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one"

I think I can explain my situation based on the background above but may need a steer on challenging the POC one by one. As part of my defence do I challenge them to demonstrate which one they are claiming for i.e. not paying for the ticket, or not paying within the time allowed?

Any reference to previous similar defence where I can use as a guidance would be appreciated as well.

Yep that defence point was already written in February!

Search the forum for:

Defence Hannah Robinson wonders mine

The 5 minute rule is banned but try telling that to 'Captain Clampit' Simon Renshaw-Smith!

Excel and VCS will still be suing over all these historical cases for the next 6 years unless the Government steps in and bans pursuit of unfair cases (any cases where the conduct is now banned for new PCNs and/or is in the 'Appeals Charter' section of the incoming statutory Code and/or was clearly always 'unfair' under the CRA 2015).

BTS_mom

Thank you @Car1980 @1505grandad and @Coupon-mad. Really appreciate all your helpful replies. 

Yes, once I have completed the draft for my defence, I will be sharing it on here. Great analogy, thanks. 

Yes, I have taken photos of the signage (contract) at the entrance to the car park. It is located on the passenger’s side and the 10 minute rule bit is not legible (at least to me) from the driver’s seat. I would have had to leave the car to go read it which apparently is against their Code Of Practice. I got this from a case that is very similar to mine. 

Thank you but I can’t seem to find it. Does it matter that mine is a 10 minute rule? They haven’t actually specified how many minutes it was before I paid. 

Thank you. 

1505grandad

Another sign (contract) with Excel but claim issued by another entity (VCS)

Coupon-mad

Thank you but I can’t seem to find it. 

Yes you can. Do the search again. You aren't looking for an 'it'. There are several defences.

Obviously you'd change to NEWEST not 'best match' results because you know you are looking for 2025 posts only. 

BTS_mom

Apologies all for not getting round to posting my draft defence sooner and not being used to these things, so here goes...

Thank you @1505grandad for pointing out a fundamental issue. @Coupon-mad - hopefully I've got the right one you were referring to in my draft below:

Please see below my first pass of the defence:

3 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 and 3 is denied. The alleged contravention is unlawful as further described in this defence. Paragraph 4 is denied. The Defendant has acknowledged by way of a previous appeal that it is the driver therefore further highlighting the cut and paste nature of the Claimant’s claim. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1 On 04.12.2024 the Defendant entered the premises for the purpose of parking to attend a hospital visit. The Defendant spent circa 10-12 minutes looking and waiting for a parking space to become available. Once parked, the Defendant paid for 2 hours of parking in good faith and had no reason to suspect any wrongdoing and subsequently left the premises within the available time. Therefore, the Defendant is assuming that the Claimant is seeking redress from the Court of not paying within the 10 minute upon entering the site.

3.2 The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel Parking Services Ltd. and the driver. Vehicle Control Services Ltd. were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it. The Defendant is therefore asking the court to strike out this case.

3.3. The claim will also highlight a breach from Vehicle Control Services of not having reasonable cause to request information of the vehicle from the DVLA or; Excel Parking Services in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 by the sharing of personal information to a third party. The Defendant will confirm this through a Subject Access Request with the DVLA.

3.4 Notwithstanding the above, it appears that the Defendant is being penalised for getting entrapped by the infamously hidden '5 minute rule' which has been in the national news. The parking industry Trade Bodies have both recognised - only after the matter was raised in both Houses of Parliament - that such a term is unfair on paying drivers and this conduct has been swiftly banned. To hold a consumer liable for an unknown '5 or 10 minute time limit' hidden term, is arguably a 'misleading omission' (ref: the CPUTRs 2008) which is an offence - unfair commercial practice - by this Claimant.

3.5. As well as being an offence, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 a charge arising under a hidden term that places an unfair burden on the consumer is unrecoverable, so the Claimant cannot be heard to say "well it wasn't unfair last year".  That would be absurd, especially given that this same Claimant is the notorious ex-wheel-clamper responsible for the cases highlighted by BBC News (including well-publicised claims against Rosey Hudson - a £1900 claim - and Hannah Robinson - a £11,000 claim) all of which occurred around the same months and under the same "you paid too late" desperately rogue practice approach as in the extant case. This Claimant has reportedly told irate MPs last month that all such cases have been dropped, due to the adverse publicity. One wonders why they think they can pursue this one.

3.6 The Defendant accepts that there is signage at the entrance of the site however this is located on the passenger’s side and is impossible to be read whilst the vehicle is moving into the site and therefore it cannot be reasonably expected for the Defendant to fully read the signage prior to entering, and to make a decision as to whether to enter or not.

Any comments and thoughts welcome.

Coupon-mad

Great! I would just renumber those paras with normal numbering though. Then renumber the rest of the Template Defence accordingly so you have around 35 paragraphs all told.

1505grandad

Para 3.2  -  seems to be a couple of numbers reversed i.e.  -  you state "Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820)" whereas Companies House state:-

"VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

Company number 02498820"

Castle

Para 3.3-The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is not applicable; it's the Data Protection Act 2018.