Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 23rd Oct 18, 2:57 PM
    • 22Posts
    • 4Thanks
    mooney89
    Served with Court claim by VCS
    • #1
    • 23rd Oct 18, 2:57 PM
    Served with Court claim by VCS 23rd Oct 18 at 2:57 PM
    HIi all, thanks for the advice RE the info i need to provide in order to seek out some advice. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure i've missed the deadline for submitting a defence to court, so i'd appreciate some advice as to whether it's still possible/worth it trying to fight this in court, or whether I should get in touch with VCS and negotiate. Below are the relevant details that might help., and here's a link to a google drive folder where you can access the images. Just remove the space between the 'h' and the 'ttps' and then copy and paste.
    h ttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1GJiGINslCWdS6-wmzPVAcj80KW-1hXtc
    Date of issue of claim form: 15 October 2018 (I've acknowledged service of this claim online as per NEWbie thread instructions though sadly I think too many days have now passed for me to submit a defence, leaving me unsure as to what my options are. I've attached pictures of the relevant details suggested below.

    POC, verbatim: The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £160 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on 07/01/2018 at Flora Street Retail park (Sheffield).
    The CN related to a **Make** **Model** registration *******. The Terms of the CN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue Date to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
    The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of Judgement or earlier payment.

    The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and i am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.
    Signed Simon Renshaw-Smith.


    • Issued with a ticket earlier this year in a retail carpark in Sheffield for my car having been parked outside of a marked bay, as other cars had done. At no point have I confirmed who was driving that day.
    • Initially VSC got in touch to a previous address, meaning that by the time I had updated my DVLA details after a house move, the correspondence now claimed that I owe £160.
    • Responded to VCS following advice taken from this forum.
    • Issued with a succession of debt collection letters offering reduced repayment etc which I've totally ignored.
    • Issued with a letter before claim which I've ignored - I realise this may be a mistake.
    • Issued with a service of court claim - I've followed instructions to acknowledge receipt of service, to apply for more time to construct a defence.
    Any advice on next steps and the appropriate templates to use to construct a defence would be really warmly appreciated. Equally if and when the details of this case become apparent and it becomes clear that I don't have a leg to stand on, I'd appreciate anyone saving me time by telling me it's not worth fighting!


    Many thanks in advance,
    Last edited by mooney89; 24-11-2018 at 11:22 AM. Reason: response to suggestions from a replier.
Page 2
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 26th Nov 18, 9:41 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    Good news it seems. My defence has been received and a Defence Questionnaire sent out (so says the MCOL portal) . I'm guessing I should continue to follow the instructions on the NEWBIE thread and take it from there. Thanks to all those who have contributed and helped with this, it's a great public service and I really appreciate it.
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 16th Apr 19, 4:21 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    Hi all,


    My case has been allocated to small claims for the 7th May, Defences have been exchanged, and the claimant VCS has sent both me and the court their witness statement and evidence. I have a week in which to do the same, and would like some advice on witness statements and evidence.



    I've included a first draft of my WS below - I've found it difficult to know what to include as there are so many variant examples depending on the nature of the claim. I'll be including some of bargepole an others' advice about legal precedents, case law and evidence of this, but would appreciate some general advice on

    - glaring errors in terms of evidence that I need to include
    - formatting
    - any claims I have made that would need to be evidenced
    - any statements in the claimant's witness statement (attached in photos) that should be attacked at this stage




    The nature of my defence is summarised at the beginning, following advice I've seen from loadsofchildren.


    Thanks in advance for any help you can offer.
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 16th Apr 19, 5:05 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    frustratingly my camera is broken, meaning I have to summarise the important parts of the claimant's witness statement as follows. I'll miss out anything that seems obviously mundane.


    6. Claimant states there are 'restricted areas of the car park that vehicles are not allowed to park in. It is this condition that is material to this case.' - Part of my defence claims that their definition of what is and isn't a restricted space is by no means clear.



    7. 'Whilst the vehcile was parked within the development the dfendant was confirmed as the driver of the vehicle bearing the registration ******. The said vehcile was parked within the development in breach of the advertised terms and conditions to which the Defendant has failed to settle any outstanding liability.' I don't see how they can claim this, other than relying on the POFA 2012 legislation - some advice would be appreciated here, as its one of the legs of my defence, though I realise likely to be rejected.



    Title and interest.



    8. 'Following their appointment the claimant erected warning notices throughout the development making it clear that anyone parking...did so in accordance with [t and cs]. - part of my defence rests on unclear signage


    9. ... 'The claimant is contracted to undertake parking management activities and issue pARKING chARGE Notices [''PCN''] where vehciles are idenfieid on the development in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions.' - I have the original document that was attached to the windscreen, and it states clearly 'this is not a parking charge notice'.



    11. ...'The signs throughout the development clearly advise anyone parking within the development that they wre entering into a contract with the cLAIMANT. th claimant was entitled to contract with drivers on behalf of the owners of the development in accordance with their appointments. ' - as above, clear signage argument.



    Breach of the Terms and conditions


    13. Claimant lists documents enclosed in evidence:

    - a contract
    - photos of the car park ( I have photos of my own showing the signage in very small type, well above head height, and bent and buckled nearerst to where my car was parked
    signage artwork
    overhead photo of the carpark


    14. ...'The warning signs are visable upon entry to the car park and throughout the location.' - my defence rests on challenging this I suppose. it goes on to specify the signage size:

    - 1 entrance board (750mm x 1500mm)
    - 17 information boards (1220mm x 605mm)



    15. claimant lays out consequences of failing to meet these T and C, none of which seems challengable or relevant.

    16. another reference to the vehicle having been 'recorded parked in a restricted / prohibited area thus resulting in a PCN being issued.'



    Liability of the defendant to the claimant



    17 and 18: details about the 'card' affixed to the windscreen 'informing that they may have breached the Trems and Conditions of parking', and giving instructions for how to view the alleged breach online.

    20 - 25 -all regarding appeals process, which I took no part in.

    27. 'at all material times the claimant has complied with the debt pre-action protocol and served a letter before claim on 27th August 2018.



    Authorities:


    29: Thornton v shoe lane parking 1971 2 QB 163 - settles that individuals may enter into contract with a sign and reference


    31 - reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 where Roch L.J. makes judgement about the need for onjective judgement regarding whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or conests to tresspass.



    32. sched. 4 POFA 2012 - claimant can hold keeper liable in event driver cant be identifed - I'm guessing this renders that aspect of my defence invalid.



    34. 'The signage is prominently displayted and visab;e on entry to the site. it is submitted that the claimant has donw what is reasonable to draw attention to the existence of the contractual terms and therefore has given sufficient notice of them. '


    35 - relienace on parkingeye Vs beavis [2015] uksc 67 - establishing that in 'cases such as this' a contract exists by virtue of having entered and left the site.



    The Defendeant's Defence


    36. 'Paragraph 2 of the defence is not denied. The claimant would like to clarify that a Charge notice was NOT affixed to the windscreen of the Defendant's vehicle.' - is this a significant admission?


    37. 'The claimaints eveidence contained within exhibit YC2 - notices and evidence shows that a 'warning card' was affxed to the Defendant's windscreen.



    The parargaphs that follow are statements regarding VCS having acted appropriately regarding postal notices etc and the POFA legislation.



    61. 'paragraph 2.1 of the defence is denied. the site overhead supplied within exhibit YC1 - site information shows that there are 18 signsi nplace for the attention of the motorst including 1 entrance board which is located at the entrance point of the car park. Thus the claimant would argue that the driver had sufficient notice of the warning notices designated throughout the car park.'


    62. 'paragraph 3 of the defence is dendied. The terms and conditions of the car park explicitly state 'Park only between the lines of a single marked bay.'



    65. paragraph 3 in respect of the particulars of the claim is denied. The defenant has ample notice of the parking charge by way of the parking charge notice, final reminder and letter before claim. The correspondances contained sufficient information in respect of the contravention.



    66 - 67 - claimants defence of their correct wording in POC


    69. 'paragraph 4 of the defence is denied. the claimant's signs are compliant with the IPC Code of Practice. Further, the signs are audited and approaved by the IPC. '


    70 'clear comprehensible manner' of signage


    71 'prominently displayed and visable on entry'


    72 - 78- paragraphs 5 and 6, 7, 7.1, 7.2 of defence denied






    Last edited by mooney89; 16-04-2019 at 5:07 PM.
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 16th Apr 19, 5:09 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    My defence, for reference;


    The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
    2. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car registration *****of which the
    Defendant was at the time of the alleged contravention the registered keeper - on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a coloured envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. the piece of paper attached to the said car did in this case bear the same exact legend. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted (thereby also failing to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (hereafter POFA) that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    2.1. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

    3. Furthermore, photographs supplied by the Claimant clearly demonstrate that the car appears to have been penalised for parking in a particular bay that was not marked as 'no parking', nor a 'restricted area' at all. The area of the car park in which the car was parked has no yellow lines or hatching, did not obstruct access to or route via pedestrian walkway, exit or entrance, and did not obstruct or in any way hinder vehicular exit or entry, and is not obstructing other cars in any way. in point of fact it appears from the photographs supplied by the Claimant that the space on which the car was parked appears be a bay that could be used, as other drivers have been seen to do at that site before. Furthermore there were cars
    parked in a row on to which the car in question joined, none of which had been issued with any form of parking contravention notice at any point throughout the duration of the period of parking in question. It seems the Claimant leaves this bay unmarked, to use it to entrap drivers, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and open dealing.


    3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.



    4. Furthermore, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The damaged and signage which attempts to set out in detail the contract is attached to lampposts set at well above head height in very small print, and is not sufficiently clear enough to read from any angle, by any reasonable person's standards. Furthermore, the only sign that is visible by any reasonable person's standards is located at head height on the left of the entrance to the car park, and this signage fails to give any significant detail on the terms of the contract specified in unclear signage elsewhere.


    5. Furthermore, the Notice to Driver document attached to the car at the time of the alleged parking
    contravention fails to comply with a host of requirements made clear Schedule 4 para. 7 (a;c;d;e;f) of the POFA 2012. Therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

    6. Furthermore, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.


    6.1. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.



    7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not a ' parking charge notice', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.



    7.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the schedule 4 of the POFA 2012) of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

    7.2. Signage at the car park specified in the particulars of claim states that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.


    8. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.



    9. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim is discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.



    The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this case are true.
    Last edited by mooney89; 16-04-2019 at 5:11 PM.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Apr 19, 5:51 PM
    • 12,660 Posts
    • 12,887 Thanks
    The Deep
    I received your PM. I really do not see how I can add to the advice you have already received. You appear to be on track to confound the scammers.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 16th Apr 19, 7:38 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    please help!
    Coupon-mad, I'd very much appreciate your help with the new developments in my case against VCS, if you're able to give it ! best wishes,

    It's not the legislative process we are pointing you to read/watch. It's really the strength of opinion and the words of the MPs when discussing the scam and how damning they are about the entire industry.

    That's got to be useful for you to know, in case your MP is useless and just to give you confidence that you are fighting a scam and you have the moral high ground.

    Re your defence, it looks almost there, but I would change this to a 'coloured envelope' as some people have reported it was in a red one:

    and remove the word 'clearly' when talking about the scumbags' unclear signs:


    And add in a section that explains the facts - that the car appears to have been penalised for parking in a particular bay that was not marked as 'no parking' at all (no yellow lines/no signs) and the car was not obstructing other cars. It appeared to be a bay that could be used, as other drivers have been seen to do at that site before, and it seems the Claimant leaves this bay unmarked, to use it to entrap drivers, contrary to the doctrine of good faith and open dealing.

    AND THIS IS NOT THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH YOU SEE ON DEFENCES, WHERE DID YOU GET THIS FROM?


    SHOULD BE




    YOU NEED TO EMAIL THAT SIGNED DEFENCE TONIGHT. HEADED - URGENT DEFENCE RE CLAIM XXXXXXX

    Then, you will have to ring the CCBC in the morning and point them to your email and make sure they update MCOL on the spot, while you wait on the phone, to stop the Claimant beating you to it. Do not forget. You CANNOT ASSUME they will pick up your defence in time.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 19, 12:42 AM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    frustratingly my camera is broken, meaning I have to summarise the important parts of the claimant's witness statement as follows. I'll miss out anything that seems obviously mundane.


    6. Claimant states there are 'restricted areas of the car park that vehicles are not allowed to park in. It is this condition that is material to this case.' - Part of my defence claims that their definition of what is and isn't a restricted space is by no means clear.



    7. 'Whilst the vehcile was parked within the development the dfendant was confirmed as the driver of the vehicle bearing the registration ******. The said vehcile was parked within the development in breach of the advertised terms and conditions to which the Defendant has failed to settle any outstanding liability.' I don't see how they can claim this, other than relying on the POFA 2012 legislation - some advice would be appreciated here, as its one of the legs of my defence, though I realise likely to be rejected.



    Title and interest.



    8. 'Following their appointment the claimant erected warning notices throughout the development making it clear that anyone parking...did so in accordance with [t and cs]. - part of my defence rests on unclear signage


    9. ... 'The claimant is contracted to undertake parking management activities and issue pARKING chARGE Notices [''PCN''] where vehciles are idenfieid on the development in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions.' - I have the original document that was attached to the windscreen, and it states clearly 'this is not a parking charge notice'.



    11. ...'The signs throughout the development clearly advise anyone parking within the development that they wre entering into a contract with the cLAIMANT. th claimant was entitled to contract with drivers on behalf of the owners of the development in accordance with their appointments. ' - as above, clear signage argument.



    Breach of the Terms and conditions


    13. Claimant lists documents enclosed in evidence:

    - a contract
    - photos of the car park ( I have photos of my own showing the signage in very small type, well above head height, and bent and buckled nearerst to where my car was parked
    signage artwork
    overhead photo of the carpark


    14. ...'The warning signs are visable upon entry to the car park and throughout the location.' - my defence rests on challenging this I suppose. it goes on to specify the signage size:

    - 1 entrance board (750mm x 1500mm)
    - 17 information boards (1220mm x 605mm)



    15. claimant lays out consequences of failing to meet these T and C, none of which seems challengable or relevant.

    16. another reference to the vehicle having been 'recorded parked in a restricted / prohibited area thus resulting in a PCN being issued.'



    Liability of the defendant to the claimant



    17 and 18: details about the 'card' affixed to the windscreen 'informing that they may have breached the Trems and Conditions of parking', and giving instructions for how to view the alleged breach online.

    20 - 25 -all regarding appeals process, which I took no part in.

    27. 'at all material times the claimant has complied with the debt pre-action protocol and served a letter before claim on 27th August 2018.



    Authorities:


    29: Thornton v shoe lane parking 1971 2 QB 163 - settles that individuals may enter into contract with a sign and reference


    31 - reliance on Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 where Roch L.J. makes judgement about the need for onjective judgement regarding whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or conests to tresspass.



    32. sched. 4 POFA 2012 - claimant can hold keeper liable in event driver cant be identifed - I'm guessing this renders that aspect of my defence invalid.



    34. 'The signage is prominently displayted and visab;e on entry to the site. it is submitted that the claimant has donw what is reasonable to draw attention to the existence of the contractual terms and therefore has given sufficient notice of them. '


    35 - relienace on parkingeye Vs beavis [2015] uksc 67 - establishing that in 'cases such as this' a contract exists by virtue of having entered and left the site.



    The Defendeant's Defence


    36. 'Paragraph 2 of the defence is not denied. The claimant would like to clarify that a Charge notice was NOT affixed to the windscreen of the Defendant's vehicle.' - is this a significant admission?


    37. 'The claimaints eveidence contained within exhibit YC2 - notices and evidence shows that a 'warning card' was affxed to the Defendant's windscreen.



    The parargaphs that follow are statements regarding VCS having acted appropriately regarding postal notices etc and the POFA legislation.



    61. 'paragraph 2.1 of the defence is denied. the site overhead supplied within exhibit YC1 - site information shows that there are 18 signsi nplace for the attention of the motorst including 1 entrance board which is located at the entrance point of the car park. Thus the claimant would argue that the driver had sufficient notice of the warning notices designated throughout the car park.'


    62. 'paragraph 3 of the defence is dendied. The terms and conditions of the car park explicitly state 'Park only between the lines of a single marked bay.'



    65. paragraph 3 in respect of the particulars of the claim is denied. The defenant has ample notice of the parking charge by way of the parking charge notice, final reminder and letter before claim. The correspondances contained sufficient information in respect of the contravention.



    66 - 67 - claimants defence of their correct wording in POC


    69. 'paragraph 4 of the defence is denied. the claimant's signs are compliant with the IPC Code of Practice. Further, the signs are audited and approaved by the IPC. '


    70 'clear comprehensible manner' of signage


    71 'prominently displayed and visable on entry'


    72 - 78- paragraphs 5 and 6, 7, 7.1, 7.2 of defence denied






    Originally posted by mooney89
    We all need to have a look at this one to assist.

    When do you have to get your WS and evidence in by?

    What are you fielding as evidence yourself?

    I suggest you now search the forum for VCS Wilkes and learn about how to challenge the Rights of Audience of the fresh-faced 'rep' VCS like to send, who has no RoA and can't speak for VCS if you challenge his presence well with the usual articles & case law.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 19th Apr 19, 7:28 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    Hi coupon_mad thanks so much for getting back to me. Im afraid with the deadline for the WS submission looming (hearing is 7th May) i had to submit my WS and evidence to VCS and court.
    My defence rests on inadaquate signage , differntiating from the beavis case, and VCS not having followed POFA, principallt becsuse despite my driving liscence having been issued to my current address on the same day the parking took place ( i had recently moved house and updated my dvla records, and my licence clearly show that issue date), vcs sent all first correspondance to the old address , and only sent a letter to me more than 3 months after the incident. Ive evidenced relevant case law following advice on the newbie thread, along with bpa and ipc codes of practice, and my own photographs and correspondance. My witness statement is probably not as well organised or logical as i would like, but ive done my best with the time i had working around being a full time teacher! Ill post my WS and list of exhibits after the weekend. Any and all advice as to what i csn still do in terms of skeleton arguments and anything else i can prepare to argue my case, along with any other general advice, would be great. Thanks in advance!
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 19th Apr 19, 8:53 AM
    • 4,621 Posts
    • 3,998 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    principallt becsuse despite my driving liscence having been issued to my current address on the same day the parking took place ( i had recently moved house and updated my dvla records, and my licence clearly show that issue date), vcs sent all first correspondance to the old address
    Originally posted by mooney89
    I know it is a bit down the line but you are talking about driving licence whereas it is your V5C (log book) that determines to where they send the PCN. I assume (and hope) that you have also updated the DVLA with your new address as registered keeper via your V5C.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 19, 10:35 AM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Ill post my WS and list of exhibits after the weekend. Any and all advice as to what i can still do in terms of skeleton arguments and anything else i can prepare to argue my case, along with any other general advice, would be great.
    Great, let's see what you have sent.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 19th Apr 19, 12:36 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    V5c
    Thanks for that. Unfortunatley ive not thought thay through- ive just submitted a copy of my drivers licence aa evidence. Can i still bring along my v5c paperwork to the hearing or will it not be accepted? I certainly did update my v5c, but until ive checked i cant be sure. Do you have any idea where i stand if the v5c was changed after the date of the incident? Or if the paperwork was sent off before, but it waa in the process when the incident took place?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th Apr 19, 1:20 PM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    and VCS not having followed POFA, principallt becsuse despite my driving liscence having been issued to my current address on the same day the parking took place ( i had recently moved house and updated my dvla records, and my licence clearly show that issue date), vcs sent all first correspondence to the old address , and only sent a letter to me more than 3 months after the incident.
    VCS haven't followed the POFA anyway, as we know from umpteen zillion threads re VCS.

    The POFA is not just about the date of a NTK. It's also about:

    - the words on that NTK
    - adequate notice of the parking charge (signs)
    - a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 23rd Apr 19, 12:08 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    V5c
    HI there,


    The DVLA have just cofirmed over the phone that my V5C address was NOT updated to my currect address at the time of the parking incident. Does this render this aspect of my defence totally void? Annoyingly I'm assuming so.


    Thanks,
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 23rd Apr 19, 2:03 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    witness statement
    Hi all,
    please see my witness statement, pasted below. It's not as logical or as organised as I would have liked it to be, but it was my best attempt under busy circumstances. I would very much appreciate any criticism or comments about what else if anything I could include to support my defence.






    WITNESS STATEMENT


    Introduction




    I am Mr **************, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:


    Before I describe what happened on the day the car (registration ******) to which I was the registered keeper was parked in ******car park, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:


    ) A 'charge notice' ('CN') was not affixed to the car registration ******at the time of the alleged contravention, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. Accordingly, it is denied any contravention of terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed of any parking charge, either by adequate signage of by a CN. Additionally, the Notice to Driver Document attached to the car failed to comply with requirements set out in relevant legislation, and therefore fail to create any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.


    The Notice to Keeper was sent to the Defendant’s previous address, despite the Defendant being able to prove that on the day of the alleged contravention a valid driving licence with a different address had already been issued by the DVLA. Therefore, by failing to give notice of a parking charge to the Defendant’s actual address until over 2 months had passed, the Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of relevant legislation to serve notice to the keeper of the vehicle, and has therefore failed to establish keeper liability, or create any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.
    The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle, indicating that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action or specify how terms were breached, contrary to Civil Procedure Rules and Civil Practice Direction. Therefore keeper liability cannot be established.
    Furthermore, and regardless of any judgement on a), b) or c), it is denied that the claimant's signage is sufficiently clear enough to bind any reasonable person reading them, relying on the precedents set in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015]

    Background and events




    • At approximately ******on the ****** the car to which I was the registered keeper at that time was parked at ******car park in Sheffield to shop at the stores which this car park serves. Myself and several other individuals were insured to drive this car at that time (Exhibit MR1) and I cannot confirm or deny whom the driver may have been, given this was over a year ago. I do however recall that I was a present in the car at this time.
    • The car park was extremely busy at the time, and I recall that the car had circled the entire car park several times before a space to park could be found. The only signage visible from the viewpoint of a moving or parked car is that at the entrance to the car park (Exhibit MR2), which makes no mention of the requirement to ‘Park only between the lines of a single marked bay’, a stipulation which is not mentioned on said entrance signage, and which is relied upon for the claim by the Claimant in paragraph 62 of their Witness Statement. It is accepted by the Defendant that these words appear on signage placed very high and way above head height on lampposts around the car park, but the small size of this lettering and the inaccessible positioning of it in relation to the viewpoint of a parked or moving car is so unreasonably difficult to read that no reasonable person could be bound into a contract by them. In addition, the signage nearest to the place where the car was parked was bent and buckled, rendering it even more unreasonable to expect any person to be able to read the small print (Exhibit MR3).
    • Further, the Claimant is an accredited member of both the British Parking Association (BPA) and the International Parking Community (IPC), and claims to adhere to their codes of conduct, which state that ‘’Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way.’’ (Exhibit MR4; IPC code of Practice, paragraph 2.1, page 9)
    • Accordingly, ‘’The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.’’ (Exhibit MR4 IPC code of practice, page 9)
    • Furthermore BPA’s code of conduct states that ‘’Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format. The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.’’ (Exhibit MR5 BPA Code of Practice paragraph 18.2 page 11)
    • BPA’s code of practice includes an appendix B which clearly instructs its members that in cases where the ‘’Parking area [is] entered immediately by turning off a 30 mph road’’, making the ‘’typical approach speed’’ 15 miles per hour, the minimum capital height for group I letters on an entrance sign should be 60mm. In the case of the ******care park, the requirements of the Claimants’ own accrediting bodies have not been met (Exhibit MR5, page 29), and so by measurement against the standards to which the Claimant claims to uphold, it is contented that a parking contract was never established.
    • Further, 5.2. The bar for clear parking terms on signage was set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] referring to the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.'' No such indication of the Claimant’s stipulation about parking only between the lines of marked bays was made on any signage that could be read by a reasonable person. (Exhibit MR6)





    • The Claimant in their witness statement relies on the authority of The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 when they state that ‘in cases such as this, a contract exists between the Motorist and the Operator, whereby the Motorist is granted a contractual license to park their car in the Car Park on the terms of the notice posted at the sire, which are accepted by entering and leaving the vehicle at the site’’ (Claimant’s witness statement, paragraph 35). However, due to the inadequacy of the Claimant’s signage by the standards of Parking organizations of which it is an accredited member, ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply and is not relevant here, and is differentiated from this case. (Exhibit MR7 page 40 and 41).
    • The photographic evidence submitted in Exhibit 8 clearly demonstrates that in relation to the above paragraphs 3 – 9, the Claimant has failed to meet the standards of signage set out in both accredited trade association bodies, and has failed to meet the bar set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956], and further has failed to establish any similarity or reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis [2015], and therefore the Defendant denies that it was even possible under these circumstances for the Defendant to enter into a contract with the Claimant,.
    • The car to which was parked next to a row of parked cars on an unmarked area of the carpark which was clearly not obstructing other cars, parked or moving, entrance or exits, pedestrians or walkways (Exhibit MR8). Having returned to the car at approximately 15:10, a Notice to Driver Document was attached to the windscreen (Exhibit MR9)
    • The Defendant would also like to bring to the attention of the court that shortly before the incident in question the Defendant had moved addresses, from a rental property - ******The Defendant had previously informed the DVLA of this change of address, so that their details relating to car in question could be updated. By the day of the incident, the Defendant’s new address had been registered by the DVLA, which had issued the defendant with a new driving licence that demonstrates this clearly (Exhibit MR10) Despite this being the current address of the Defendant at the time of the incident, I was not informed at all about this alleged parking charge notice until I received a letter dated 22nd March 2018 and later 6th April 2018 (Exhibit MR11 )informing me of a parking charge notice for £160. The Defendant contends that this failure to deliver a notice to keeper within the 14 day time frame confirmed in the Claimant’s witness statement (paragraph 41) fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Exhibit MR12) a failure which leads the Defendant to contend that no keeper liability for any charge was ever created. Therefore contrary to the Claimant’s statements in their witness statement, no right to pursue the Defendant as the Registered Keeper has been established. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.
    • Further, Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated in an annual report of the Independent Appeals Service for Parking Charge Notices Issues on Private Land, that ‘’ However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.’ (Exhibit MR13)
    • I was later sent a series of letters from Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCS) and a series of Debt Recovery Companies working on behalf of VCS. These letters are evidenced in Exhibit MR14The letters claim costs for an unpaid parking charge of varying amounts including at different times £60, 100, £160, and a number of other discounted amounts (Exhibit MR14

    • The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

      I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.

      Signature of Defendant:
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 19, 2:55 PM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    HI there,


    The DVLA have just cofirmed over the phone that my V5C address was NOT updated to my currect address at the time of the parking incident. Does this render this aspect of my defence totally void? Annoyingly I'm assuming so.
    Originally posted by mooney89
    No, but I already told you that the fact VCS didn't comply with the POFA isn't due to writing to an old address. I already told you to steer well away from the address issue:

    VCS haven't followed the POFA anyway, as we know from umpteen zillion threads re VCS.

    The POFA is not just about the date of a NTK. It's also about:

    - the words on that NTK
    - adequate notice of the parking charge (signs)
    - a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract'
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 24th Apr 19, 3:48 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    I've already sent off my witness statement as eth deadline was looming. Please could you help me as to whether I can include any of those arguments about VCS not having followed POFA rules, when I've not specifically mentioned them in the witness statement? I.E:


    - the words on that NTK
    - adequate notice of the parking charge (signs)
    - a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract'
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 19, 4:08 PM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes you can do a Skeleton Argument about the legal stuff and any case law you want to rely on.

    Obviously the way to understand Schedule 4 is simply to read it, it's easy to read, and it's linked in the NEWBIES thread first post 'for those who want to dig deeper'.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 24th Apr 19, 4:19 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    Thanks for that. I assure you I have read it quite a bit, however I had been put of by how thoroughly VCS seemed to have argued in their WS that they had followed it to the letter. To the best of my knowledge it seemed like they had followed it properly, but I'll comb through their WS again with the POFA in hand and do my best to pick out discrepancies.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 24th Apr 19, 4:40 PM
    • 70,386 Posts
    • 82,979 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's been done loads of times in VCS threads - you do not have to work this out from scratch!

    You already know the PCN wasn't a PCN, according to VCS, yet clearly it was! therefore they got your data prematurely then used the wrong 28 day period.

    Please do not post that you can't see the difference between their words and 9(2)f of Schedule 4!

    As well as there being no adequate notice of the parking charge on signs, and no relevant obligation or relevant contract...

    Although this person reported that they lost their case (bad Judge, probs - just bad luck on the day, most likely), here is a case where at WS stage the OP pulled apart the VCS template WS drivel:

    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75581072#post75581072

    ...and you need to understand Rights of Audience which is also explained there, ready for if Mr Wilkes or another self employed 'legal rep' rocks up on the day.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • mooney89
    • By mooney89 25th Apr 19, 4:28 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    mooney89
    I can't seem to find any evidence that VCS failed to comply with the requirement to transfer liability to the keeper and begin to recover the alleged charge. They sent an initial 'notice to keeper' / 'parking charge notice' on the 7th day after the incident, and then a 'parking charge notice' 'final reminder' on the 29th day after the incident. Any suggestions as to whether I can claim they've not followed POFA in that respect?
    Last edited by mooney89; Today at 4:30 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,544Posts Today

7,465Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Have a great Easter, or a chag sameach to those like me attending Passover seder tomorrow. I?m taking all of next? https://t.co/qrAFTIpqWl

  • RT @rowlyc1980: A whopping 18 days off work for only 9 days leave! I?ll have a bit of that please......thanks @MartinSLewis for your crafty?

  • RT @dinokyp: That feeling when you realise that you have 18 days of work and only used 9 days of your annual leave! Thanks @MartinSLewis h?

  • Follow Martin