VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed

saarchy wrote: »

Thanks for the help guys. Need to have this submitted by the 2nd, but no sign of any documentation from VCS. I'm guessing I must get this tomorrow/Tuesday at the latest. If it is Tuesday, I'll likely have to send off my Witness Statement before I see theirs, which will be annoying.

Either way, I've drafted my Witness Statement below for feedback please. This is just the particulars of my case with details/exhibits where necessary. I've not included the actual exhibits at this stage, but will chuck the whole Witness Statement in Dropbox before I send so you can double check it's good enough.

Just a point - Do exhibits/pictures need to be copied directly into Witness Statement pack? I'll be sending via e-mail & post, and not sure whether to include the exhibits on the e-mail as well... Probably a silly question....

Anyway, feedback would be great. There's no case law reference at all at this stage as I'm just trying to nail down the bits that are strictly relevant to my case. In addition, I don't intend to rely heavily on case law to win this one as I don't feel it's necessary. I'm going with the attitude of your everday citizen (ie - not a parking guru) and trust that the judge won't expect me to be super well versed in case law... Does that sound like a terrible idea?

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
vs
XXXXXX(Defendant)
___________________________________________________________________________
Witness Statement
1) I am XXXXXX defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim

2) This matter relates to Parking Charge Notices (PCN) issued between October 2015 and September 2016 in the Globeside Business Park. The defendant maintains that, at no point, was the vehicle in question parked on private land, and therefore was never applicable for parking enforcement by Vehicle Control Services. This can be seen on Exhibit 1, a excel document produced by Buckingham County Council which lists both Fieldhouse Way and Fieldhouse Lane as public roads, with the relevant Eastings & Northings showing the road is public across the entirety of the Business Park.

3) Throughout the duration of this claim, the Defendant was employed at Softcat plc as an Account Manager, specifically working from the Lunar House office which directly borders Fieldhouse Way. It is maintained that Softcat employees were encouraged to park on this road, which can be seen in Exhibit 2, an e-mail from Softcat’s Facilities Manager outlining the roads around the office that are suitable for parking. It’s worth noting that this e-mail was issued on 27th June 2017, almost 2 years since these PCN in question were issued. The defendant maintains that, to this day, there is still uncertainty as to Vehicle Control Services eligibility to operate on this land, which is currently being investigated by Softcat plc, Highways Agency & The Globeside Business Park Team.

4) In addition, Vehicle Control Services are in direct breach of their own terms and conditions for operating parking enforcement in Globeside Business Park. This is due to the insufficient lack of signage in the area and a total lack of parking signs at either of the 2 main entrances to the Business Park. This can be seen in Exhibit 3,4,5 and 6, as well as Exhibit 7 which is taken from Google Maps and shows the eastern entrance to the Business Park and shows a total lack of signage or information. The signs which have been erected by VCS are either partially or totally concealed behind hedgerow (Exhibit 4) or have been knocked down and not replaced (Exhibit 5). The only signs which are noticeable when entering the Business Park via the east entrance are ‘Lunar House Parking Only’ signs alongside the road (Exhibit 6), and clearly indicate that parking is allowed for any employees of Lunar House, which the Defendant very much was.

5) The Defendant has made all reasonable efforts to understand parking restrictions in the area. On or about the 2nd September and 26th September 2014, the Claimant issued the Defendant's vehicle with parking charge notices, when it was parked in the same area. The Defendant complained to the Claimant that there had been no contract with the driver, the driver had not been parked in an area marked by sufficient signage and that the signage was confusing and misleading. The Claimant agreed to cancel both notices. The Defendant relies on this as an admission by the Claimant that its signage was insufficient and misleading/confusing, and therefore no contract can have been created between it and the driver. This can be seen in Exhibit 7 & 8. The brevity of the response should be highlighted given no attempt whatsoever was made to answer the questions raised in the appeal. It is also worth noting that, between September 2014 and September 2016, no changes to signage or more information was provided by VCS to nullify the points raised in my appeal. As noted in the Defence Statement, the tickets issued to the Defendant after these aforementioned appeals can therefore be deemed erroneous. It is understandable that PCN’s were issued incorrectly by parking wardens due to the lack of clarity provided by VCS as to where exactly they operate parking enforcement in the area.

6) The signage erected by VCS is not sufficient for the area in question. In particular, Exhibit 4 shows a parking sign concealed behind a Hedgerow with all relevant information regarding parking restrictions and costs hidden behind foliage. As shown in the pictures of the area, there are no parking signs visible whatsoever when entering the Business Park from the East.


I'm pretty sure this sums up the majority of the points I want to raise on the day. I'm guessing I need to flesh this out a bit with relevant case laws/examples to set the bar etc. Is there any in particular that you feel would add weight to my case?

I've not finished it yet, hence no final part about believing these facts to be true etc..

Johnersh wrote: »

Rereading the past threads, if this is now at HE county, your documents should more correctly replace the old court with: In the High Wycombe county court

Regarding costs, if you're going to claim them, do it properly. If possible prepare a spreadsheet of letters sent and documents prepared to append to the cover page, with a time estimate for each. Then on the cover page multiply hours by £60 (being approximately 50% of costs of a grade D fee earner) that'll result in a more sizeable sum.

I can't trace the thread, but bargepole attended a recent case in HW county to which the court suggested this was an approach they were prepared to consider when assessing unreasonable costs. That schedule is normally served 7 clear days prior to a hearing (so not with the witness statement)