Notice of Intended Court Proceedings

However, this is all wrong if the original Claim Form didn't say "further PoC to follow within 14 days"

Letter from VCS Ltd on 21/09/17 with claim particulars. It makes no mention of further PoC to follow in 14 days.

As a landlord, I do not automatically forward my tenants' mail to them. only if it looks important. d Did you inform DVLA in a timely manner of your chang of address?

I'm not sure has forwarded the mail. No I did not mail the DVLA as I this is only a temporary address and I was expecting to move. Something I should have done in hindsight but didn't unfortunately.

Do I still have a case for a set aside?

Thanks

I used the various sources on the forums to put together a set aside claim. By no means an expert in law related issues so if anyone could let me know if i'm on the right track that would be much appreciated.

I haven't included an email I exchanged with the property management company. In short, they offered to reduce the charges to £300 but I refused. Could I include that?

Also the PCN one of the parking charge notices was received on 23rd of June some 60 days after the contravention for which VCS 'as a gesture of goodwill ' offered a reduced settlement of £20. Does this not contravene the 14 day rule?

Thanks

I am XXXX and I am the Defendant in this matter. This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated XXX to:

1. Set aside the Default Judgement dated XXX as it was not properly served at my current address and order for the Claimant to pay the Defendant £255 as reimbursement for the set aside fee;

2. Order for the original claim to be heard at a re-hearing.

1. Default Judgement

1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant on XXX. I am aware that the Claimant is Vehicle Control Services (UK) Ltd (VCS), and that the claim is in respect of 13 unpaid Parking Charge Notices dated from 18th of April to 1st of May at XXX. I further contest this charge for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this defence.

1.2. The claim form was not served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until the of 3rd November 2017 where it had been posted to a forwarding address I provided the letting agent. I understand that this Claim was served at, XXX. However, I moved to a new address at, XXX on 1st September 2017.

1.3. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant’s correct contact details at the time of the claim. They have used information that was at the time one month out of date.

1.4. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The industry’s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country. This is a topical issue: I note that the Justice Minister The Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC MP announced on the 23rd December 2016 a consultation and information campaign to help protect consumers from debt claims. The consultation will look at ways to; “better protect consumers who are sent mail to inaccurate addresses and verify addresses again before a claim is sent.” The Minister added that “In the digital age, we must ensure companies pursuing unpaid debts make every reasonable effort to contact individuals, rather than simply relying on a letter to an old address.”

1.5. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant’s current address when bringing the claim.

1.6. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside and I ask the Court to kindly consider the reimbursement of the fee of £255 from the claimant should this request be successful.

2. Order for the original claim to be heard at a re-hearing

2.1. I was, at the relevant date, the registered keeper of the vehicle in question registration number XXXXXX. Below is a summary of my version of the events.

2.2. On the XXX I went away on holiday until my return on XXX. Upon my return there were a number of parking charge notices (PCNs) on my car windscreen for £60 if I didn't appeal. I have a permit for bay XX but before my holiday I was cleaning my car and removed the permit and put it in the glove box of the car and didn't place it back in the holder.

2.3. I subsequently appealed each PCN on the VCS website and received a Notice to Keeper from the Claimant for each parking charge notice stating that my appeals had been turned down and now £100 was due to them for each of the parking charge notices (Total - £1300). I did not send an appeal further appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), the allegedly independent body appointed by the Claimant’s trade body, the Independent Parking Committee - now International Parking Community (IPC).


2.4. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for “Parking Charge Notices” which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.

2.5. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include ‘Protection of Freedoms Act 2012’ wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

2.6. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. For the contravention dated 27th of April 2017 the parking charge notice was received on 23rd of June 2017 for which VCS 'as a gesture of goodwill ' offered a reduced settlement of £20. The parking charge notice issued by the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

2.7. I further submit that the Claimant’s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:

2.7.1. The rental agreement I signed on XX with XXX property services allowed use of the parking space in bay XX without the need to display a parking permit. There is no provision in the lease for XX property servies to require me to pay a charge of £60 for such failure(or for the defendant VCS to do so on their behalf), and to inexplicably add the sum of £40 to that charge and in any event the letting agent failed to provide me with a new contractual agreement with which I agreed. I have attached the rental agreement.

2.7.2. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the car park in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.

2.7.3. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.

2.7.4. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.

2.7.5. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to Civil Enforcement Ltd.

2.8. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

2.9. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the a vehicle, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

2.10. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

2.11. It is not possible that a valid parking charge exists for the following reasons:

2.11.1. Even if there were a binding contract the charge would be a penalty and unfair consumer term as it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is not saved by the case law in ParkingEye v Beavis.

2.11.2. There was therefore no valid reason to apply for my keeper data from the DVLA.

2.11.3. Additionally the operator contract with the DVLA only allows them to obtain data for parking contraventions and not for briefly stopping.

2.11.4. My name and address information (together with other information) is classified as personal data within the meaning of s1(1) of the Data Protections Act (DPA). The Claimant has misused this data by attempting to claim a charge when there is no possibility that a lawful reason exists. Additionally, this data may only obtained and used from the DVLA for parking, and not for stopping.

2.11.5.. This is therefore a breach of data principle 1 (data must be used lawfully) and 2 (data must only be used for the purpose provided).

2.11.6 The case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.

2.11.7. The case of VCS v Phillip, claim number C9DP2D6C Liverpool 07/12/2016, while not binding, concerns a motorist sent a parking charge for briefly stopping at Liverpool Business Park. The signage there has the equivalent forbidding wording to the signage in this case. The judge ruled that no contract could exist and therefore data had been wrongly obtained from the DVLA. This is therefore a persuasive case that a DPA breach occurs when a parking charge is not legitimately pursued, and that a sum of at least £250 is compensation for pursuing a purported parking charge when there is no reasonable prospect of success.

2.12. In summary, and to stress the point that there is growing anger at the dubious practices of private car parking companies of which I believe I the Defendant has fallen foul of, I would also like to draw the attention of the court to a debate in Parliament on 21st March 2017 that focussed on the relationship between the DVLA and private car parking companies, and the latter’s access and (mis)use of data. In the debate the Rt Hon Steve Double MP commented that “We need to look at the relationship the firms have with the DVLA. In my view, they are abusing their privileged relationship and their access to drivers’ information.”

The Rt Hon Kevin Foster MP surmised that “We got rid of the cowboy clampers in the last Parliament. The suspicion is that the cowboy clampers have now become the cowboy finers and cowboy invoicers. Although they may wish to leave their spur marks on car parks across the country, I hope the Minister will be clear what action will be taken to ensure that they have to ride off into the sunset for good.”

I've taken both out.

Does it otherwise sound reasonable?

What about the reduced fee the property management company offered me? and the >14 days PCN sent to me?

Thanks.