Just a quick update - DVLA have replied and confirmed that it was VCS who accessed my data twice for 'breaches of terms and conditions of a private car park'. I SARed VCS on 7 March and received an automated acknowledgement same day, but as at today nothing has been sent through and by my reckoning their 30 days is up tomorrow. Given the Easter break I want to get my ducks in a row, is my next step a Letter Before Claim for both breaching their statutory duty regarding their failure to respond to the SAR and also their misuse of my data given they know they it wasn't a breach of the terms given the standard grace period? Or is it two separate LBC's? Also what is a fair sum to claim? Having read through the NCP claim I know £200 was the sum there, but not sure if I should ask for more, less or the same? I want to make them suffer, but also I want to make sure I don't present myself as unreasonable if we end up in front of a judge.

Thank you Dave, both templates completed and sent off...now we wait.

Turns out I only have 4 of the 5 pages of the contract, but I think it's enough VCS.pdf

Just realised it's not a SAR to DVLA, but a specific template

I'm liking the sound of this Dave, have been reading up on what I believe was the previous case (against a company called ECS?!). As I read it my initial courses of action are: SAR to DVLA to see who has been accessing my data SAR to VCS I was planning to send them by email (VCS already have my email address so not learning anything new here), only issue is I can't find anything relating to VCS and data protection, only email address seems to be; info@vehiclecontrol.co.uk, would this be okay? Will get the contract scanned and uploaded later on tonight when I'm at home

The week before the case was due to be heard I received my umpteenth witness statement (nothing new there), however whenever I've received them before they've only ever sent 2 pages of the parking services contract supposedly made between VCS and the landowner, despite it being clear there are 5 pages in total (pages are numbered 1 of 5 etc.). In this latest WS, for the first time in either dealing, I got all 5 pages, which included two schedules, one of which is a parking policy and within the parking policy it says: "A minimum "Grace" period of thirty minutes will be utilised over the maximum stay period before a parking charge notice is issued" The length of time I was in the car park was 78 minutes. We get in there, they start with the advocate, he speaks for about 10 mins, balance of probability I was the driver, loads of other waffle, blah, blah, blah. I apologise to the Judge, explain that there's pages in the latest WS I've never received previous to this week. I point out what it says, that I was there 78 minutes and they're breaching their own contract by issuing the PCN. Judge agrees, asks advocate if he can present any other evidence, he tries to waffle a bit more before he's very firmly asked if he can present any evidence, he says no, case dismissed. Irritatingly forgot to ask about costs, but if that's the worst thing that happens to me this week, I think I'll live. I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether or not VCS and their advocates deliberately withhold pages of their contract as it shows their blatant disregard for rules (including their own), but I know what I think...

Hearing was rescheduled for today and I won . Once again thank you to anyone and everyone who took the time to read/reply/support me, the hearing literally lasted 15 minutes, which is a nice segue to my next point...there's some stuff I want to post on here about it, but it could be considered contentious and I wouldn't want to do that, is there a mod/site owner I can PM with what I want to post and they can tell me if it would be allowed?

Fuming. The case was supposed to be heard today and the Claimant's advocate hadn't turned up, however the Judge said that my witness statement hadn't been received despite me e-mailing it to the court back in June and so has adjourned the case. Do I have any standing here to get it struck out, feels like I haven't done anything wrong, yet I'm the one being punished :-(. I have re-sent my original email along with a request that it's receipt be acknowledged, but feels like I'm being punished for the court's mistake

Thanks Dave, hopefully the covid symptoms aren't too bad! I've incorporated your comments and the excellent points in the post cited. Think I'm about read for filing, but as it's 4pm on 29 June, might wait until Monday before trotting off to the post office.

First draft of my WS below, this was much easier when they sent theirs early and gave me the answers. Any and all feedback is very gratefully received... Introduction 1. I am the named defendant in this matter and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all. 2. Except where specifically stated or admitted, no other element of this claim is admitted; the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of every element of its claim. 3. It is not admitted that the defendant either directly or indirectly or whether by conduct express or consent entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant to pay any parking charge or amount. 4. The Claimant previously bought a case against the Defendant for an alleged infringement in the same car park. This Claimant’s case was dismissed (Exhibit 1 is the General Form of Judgement or Order) Locus Standi 5. The Claimant relies on warning notices erected throughout the development. A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission ever having been granted allowing signs to be erected at the address of the site. The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case 6. As no planning permission for the erection of signs has been granted, none of the signs in the car park has been authorised by the local Council under the Town and Country [advertisements] regulations 2007. 7. The Claimant relies on a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme. This contract has been in effect from 7 November 2011. 8. The contract states ‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011’ 9. The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is there proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2022 making the contract null and void. 10. This puts the Claimant in breach of their agreement with Scottish Widows where they agree to comply with the IPC Code of Conduct 2.42 Be compliant with all necessary legislation. 11. The Claimant in paragraph 61 of the WS refers to Parking Eye v Beavis, in his summary of this case Lord Neuberger stated ‘111] " ........And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced."’ As this was a Supreme Court judgement, all lower Courts must follow. 12. This means the Claimant does not comply with DVLA terms either. The Claimant assure all three companies that they are compliant when they are not. Their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA relies on them being compliant with IPC Code of Conduct. So it calls into question their right to even have applied to the DVLA for the Defendants data which would be a breach of GDPR. Keeper liability 13. Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended allows the Claimant, whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, 14 days to deliver to that address. 14. As the issue date on the Parking Charge Notice was 30 June 2016, 19 days after the alleged contravention occurred. The Claimant cannot pursue the registered keeper under keeper liability. 15. As the Claimant has been unable to identify the driver at the time of the alleged infringement, they have pursued the Defendant as the register keeper of the vehicle. Given the alleged infringement occurred over 6 years ago, it is unreasonable for the Claimant to expect the Defendant to remember who was driving the vehicle. Recovery of costs 16. The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims. 17. It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly six years in order to claim as much interest as possible. 18. In ParkingEye Limited V Somerfield Stores Limited (8MA91364), Judge Hegarty stated in paragraph 419 ‘It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ It can be reasonably presumed that the Defendant would know of this judgement so once again, it would seem risking being held in contempt of court that anyone would sign a Statement of Truth after another outrageous claim. Conclusion 19. As the Claimant has been unable to identify who was driving at the time of the alleged infringement they have pursued action against the Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle. 20. The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale. 21. The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate. 22. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site. 23. The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land. 24. The Claimants previous action was in the same car park and is therefore a persuasive case that the Claimants case has no merit The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed.

Thanks HB, Notice of allocation has been received, I have returned the N159 to both the court and a copy to VCS. I'm currently working on my WS which needs to be with the court by 29 June (the benefit of having done this before is making this somewhat easier!), but I have a couple of questions please: 1. VCS appear to no longer manage the car park in question, the land has been purchased and blockaded (I believe the whole development is due to be turned into a LIDL), presuming that doesn't have any bearing on anything, but just wanted to check as I no longer have the capacity to photograph signage etc. as it's not there any more? 2. Should my WS make any reference to their previous case against me (which I won in court)? 3. Their most recent claim was started less than a week after I won the previous case and is for a far older "offence", clearly Simon's pride is bruised so he's having another go, do I mention that? 4. Is there any statute of limitation with any of this? It's been over 6 years since the original "infringement", if it was a default notice it'd be dead by now (I know these are completely different things)

Very succinct reply received from DCB Legal to my CR31:14 request, simply states: Anything specific I should be doing with this?

Thanks as always dx, ironically I don't feel on the ball, the claim form only arrived this week (we seem to get post once a week at most these days), "luckily" I've done this before so a quick re-read of my old thread and I knew what I had to do. Just completing the CR31.14 letter which details the court as COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE, is that what I add to the letter or is it the Northampton County court (that being where the county court business centre is)?

I was planning to file the following defence, but any and all comments/thoughts gratefully received: 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 30 June 2016, 19 days after the alleged contravention occurred. 5. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 6. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Thanks to BF for re-opening this thread and dx for the reminder of the sticky. VCS sent an early Christmas present in the shape of a claim form... Name of the Claimant : Vehicle Control Services Limited Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL LTD Date of issue – 24 Nov 2021 Date for AOS - 12 December 2021 (submitted today 10 December 2021 via MCOL website) Date to submit Defence - 24 December 2021 What is the claim for – 1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [registration number] at St Marys Gate Retail 2. The PCN details are 06/11/2016, VCxxxxxxxx 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms of Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed £232.60 court fees £35.00 legal rep fees £50.00 Total Amount £317.60

Thanks dx. Weird thing is, I don't ever recall receiving a default notice from MBNA, there's no default notice in the SAR correspondence from MBNA and there's no default registered by them on my credit file (only one from PRA). Whereas with some of the others, e.g. NatWest, there's a default registered at the date they sold the debt on (from NatWest) and then also one from Cabot Financial (who they sold the debt onto). My wife has a similar situation with a Barclaycard, according to her credit file they've never defaulted her, there's no default notice in the SAR correspondence, but this one is slightly different in so far as Link Financial (who the debt has been sold onto) have never defaulted her either (credit file shows a 'debt' that's being serviced). My frustration is that I specifically requested default notices in my SAR requests as I was confused by the dates of some of them on my credit file and wanted to x-ref... Hang on, scratch that, I was only checking my Experian report, having also checked my Equifax report MBNA have defaulted me, no default on either report for my wife though?!

Started to receive some SAR's back , although NatWest are proving particularly problematic, I've made two requests, one for joint products taken out by my wife and I, one for products solely in my name. The response for the joint SAR has come back and only contains information relating to our mortgage and contains no details of a joint loan or joint bank account despite account numbers for both products being listed within their SAR correspondence (they literally appear on one page that details other account numbers, but there's no other information on any of them). I've heard nothing on the single application and it has now been greater than 30 calendar days, should I be reporting this to ICO? On another note, I'd appreciate some help with a default issue I'm a little frustrated I've not been able to figure out for myself. As per my original post I had a credit card with MBNA and the debt has been subsequently sold onto PRA. In my SAR response from MBNA, they never defaulted me on this debt before it was sold on to PRA, upon receipt of the debt PRA have automatically defaulted me, can they do this? I've never taken out a credit agreement with PRA so are they able to issue a default against me? If not, how do I get this removed? Is it a case of just contacting the credit reference agencies?

Evening all, Some of you might remember me from my previous thread: VCS tried it on with me once before in 2016, back then I wrote them a snotty letter, ignored the deforestation that followed (claim form never issued) and that (so I thought) was that... Saturday, when I receive a letter of claim from dcb legal, dated 6 July (which is coincidentally the very day after I won my previous claim against VCS) chasing me for £160 relating to an overstay in June 2016. Not sure what you do or don't need, but the sticky details from the original PCN are below and I've attached all correspondence (including the most recent letter of claim). 1 Date of the infringement - 11/06/2016 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 30/06/2016 3 Date received - No clue 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] N (sent them a letter - P2 of the attached - their response(s) follow) Have you had a response? [Y/N?] Y 7 Who is the parking company? VCS (Vehicle Control Services) 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] St Mary's Gate Retail Park Car Park, Sheffield, S1 4QZ I'll start to draft a response and will post for comment, it's likely to centre around being outside of POFA, no planning permission on site for cameras and signs and how I hope these are better than the last lot. As always, any and all advice gratefully received. VCS Docs.pdf

So...received a letter of claim yesterday from a DC Legal dated 6 July relating to an overstay in the same car park from 2016... Looks like the funs not over yet

I'm more than happy to help in anyway I can (it'll not even begin to chip away at the debt of gratitude I owe those on this board). I think my witness statement was okay, it was more likely my performance in court that would have risked me losing. I thought I was ready, but I don't think I was as ready as I thought I was. I was incredibly nervous and the judge deciding to only focus on specific parts of my WS really threw me, I'd rehearsed it like a script which flustered me. There were also some little things like calling the Judge Sir/Madam I hadn't expected (I'd presumed 'your honour'). I guess if I was going to give anyone doing this for the first time, it would be to understand each argument of your WS individually and be ready to lead with any one of them. Guess this is all part of the judge lottery I guess

My stomach fell through the floor when the judge said it as part of summing up as I felt this was leading to a decision in favour of the Claimant. My gut feel (and I could be a million miles away here) was that the Judge had read the evidence and decided on the balance of probability that my story was likely the truth, so didn't want to go through the what she referred to as the peripheral issues. I think the reason it was accepted a contract was formed was because in my version of the story I parked within the terms of any 'contract', so it was easier to use that to rubbish the claimants case rather than going down the whole rabbit hole of whether or not a contract ever existed in the first place (if that makes any sense). Planning permission wasn't mentioned at all, again I think for the reasons outlined above.

Oh and no, Simon didn't attend

Sure, happy to. Walli didn't attend and VCS sent a representative (who I presume was from ELMS). The judge started by confirming she had all the correct documents, turned out she didn't as Walli hadn't sent his supplementary statement to the court so there was an amount of faffing whilst the representative sent the document through. Judge started by asking representative to confirm that he was happy that they couldn't rely on POFA and he agreed he was. Judge then outlined that she felt there were two main issues to discuss - was there a contract and did I breach it and was I parked in the car park when the claimant said I was. Claimants representative was asked to go first, basis of his argument was to point out all the signs etc. And that it was reasonable to expect I had accepted the contract etc. He then moved onto trying to discredit my Google location data as the times of my whereabouts were several minutes out of line with the time stamps from the ANPR cameras. There was also some fluff about it being reasonable to presume I was driving and a bit about having an opportunity to identify who, if I wasn't driving, was. The judge asked me if I was driving, I respectfully declined to answer and said it was the Claimants job to identify who was driving and I could find nothing in POFA compelling me to name the driver so wasn't going to. On the subject of discrepancies between my Google maps data and the Claimants ANPR cameras, I suggested that the accuracy of Google whose accuracy seems to be accepted the world over was likely to be better than some dodgy ANPR cameras for which the representative is unable to provide even the most basic of evidence as to when they were last calibrated. I also mentioned lookedforinfos bit about Brindley v Felt house which made the judge laugh as she said she hadn't heard that mentioned since her first year of law school (but she was familiar with it) and summarised by reiterating the point in my ws that surely I was either driving and parked within the rules or I wasn't and because of the acknowledgement the claimant couldn't rely on POFA I couldn't be pursued. The judge took a moment to gather her thoughts then delivered her summing up, she suggested she felt the claimant had done enough to establish a contract existed, but as they hadn't established who was driving couldn't prove who it was with. She then went on to say that if the claimant felt that was a bit light she felt that the slight discrepancy in the Google times and the ANPR times wasn't enough to warrant Google was wrong and she felt that my argument about double dipping was most likely what happened. She was then going to dismiss when I queried costs, mentioned the claimant being a serial litigant and asked for unreasonable costs. Made the mistake of admitting I'd used paid annual leave so the representative argued there was no financial loss. The judge suggested that the claim wasn't unreasonable and so she wouldn't award unreasonable costs and that was that.

Won Judge didn't accept any of the Claimant's arguments, but also didn't believe I demonstrated they had acted unreasonably so made no award of costs :-(, but if that's the worst thing that happens to me today, I can live with that . Can I just thank everybody that took the time to respond and help me with this claim, it's very much appreciated.

What would be acceptable here Andy? I can provide a copy of my contract of employment or a payslip, would either of these do? Issue I have is; I work for a large multi-national company, so can't just pop into the HR department and ask for copies of this sort of stuff. We have an online system that I can use to generate a pre-populated letter on headed paper, but that will only provide: - An employment reference letter - Accommodation reference letter - Mortgage reference letter - Visa reference letter