VCS ANPR PCN claimform - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ ***Claim Dismissed***

[holmer444]

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

[FTMDave]

Normally we suggest to not let on too much about how you would defend a claim, so Simon is left guessing and can't make up his lies to outwit you.  I would have suggested just to mention POFA, as in their tripe VCS have admitted the invoice is not POFA compliant.  However, thinking about it, what might stop them taking you to court is the thumping you recently gave them.  From their point of view you're a pain in the backside who won't pay and is prepared to go all the way to a court hearing - and win.  So how about -

 

 

Dear Yasmin and Jamie,

 

Re: PCN no. XXXXX

 

cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I creased up at the idea that you actually think motorists will read such tripe and then put their hands in their pockets and pay!

 

On 5 July I spent a thoroughly-enjoyable morning in front of Sheffield County Court where I gave your client, Simple Simon, an absolute thumping (PCN no. XXXXX, case no. XXXXX).  Yes, the case concerned this very same car park.

 

I would have thought that Simon would have learnt his lesson, but obviously not.  If he wants another kicking then fine by me.

 

The costs I keep getting from Simon are going in my piggy bank all to be spent on holidays in the ever-growing amount of Green List countries while laughing at his and your expense.

 

I look forward to your deafening silence.

 

COPIED TO SIMPLE SIMON; VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES

 

 

But there's no rush, see what the other regulars think.

 

Obviously I don't know if your hearing was in the morning and in Sheffield, but you get my drift!

 

Interesting that Simon has fallen out with Elms and is now using DCBL.

 

BTW, did we ever find out how long the planning permission for parking at St Mary's was?  It can't be one hour.

Edited July 12, 2021 by FTMDave
Retweaking

[Homer67]

NTK was out of time to create keeper liability anyway.

 

Don't say who was driving and they don't have a chance.

[BankFodder]

Open

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

 

[holmer444]

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

Edited December 10, 2021 by holmer444

[holmer444]

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.

[dx100uk]

the defence looks fine but dont file early!

 

get these done 

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.

Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...

You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

nice to see you are on the ball

 

dx

 

[holmer444]

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)?

[FTMDave]

Fellow Site Team member @Andyorch has brought up that it is unreasonable for Simple Simon to delay suing you for five years in order to add a huge amount of interest to the claim.  Apparently the standard is a year's interest.  So change your (7) to (8) and stick in a new (7), something like -

 

7.  The Claimant's invoice/PCN was issued more than five years ago and it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation and claim over five years' interest.

 

As dx says, don't file it yet but do do a dry run on MCOL to see if the defence will fit.  Yours is a little longer than what we normally see and MCOL has a limited number of characters.  It will be no problem if you need to chop a few words out, however have a go and see.

[holmer444]

Very succinct reply received from DCB Legal to my CR31:14 request, simply states:

 

Quote

 

We write further to your request for evidence.

 

In due course, the Court will order that both parties file and serve all evidence they intend to rely on. We confirm you will therefore receive all relevant evidence in advance of the hearing. 

 

 

Anything specific I should be doing with this?

[dx100uk]

std answer in just about every DCB(l) claimform thread.

[lookinforinfo]

• It probably means they haven't got all the info you asked for so stalling. Then when the WS is sent they will be hoping that you won't notice the missing data from your CPR request.
• I could be totally wrong and there is another perfectly logical answer why they haven't sent what you asked for. On the other hand as I was writing this I saw a pig flying by the window.

[honeybee13]

Thread reopened.

 

HB

[holmer444]

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)

[FTMDave]

1.  No bearing on anything, but as the car park is the same as your last victory by all means use any photographic evidence from the previous case.

 

2.  Yes.  It was the same car park.  So you can cite it as a "persuasive case".

 

3.  No, Simon has every right, unfortunately, to bring the case.

 

4.  No, because they issued the claim before the six years expired. 

 

Put a small section INTEREST at the end of your WS though stating it is unreasonable for Simon to delay litigation for nearly six years in order to claim as much interest as possible.

[lookinforinfo]

Although you allegedly  breached their rules on the 11th June, you had 28 days to pay it. So the Limitation Act would cut in about 28 days aftr the offence.

One advantage of them leaving it for so many years is that PoFA 2012 has been clarified as a new Private Parking Code of Practice is coming in to effect.

The first one is the period of parking. PE use the entering and leaving the car park on their ANPR cameras as that period. Sadly for them that does not take into account the time that is taken  after entering, to find a parking spot and then manoeuvring the car between the lines to avoid getting a ticket. Depending on how many people were in the car and whether any had disabilities may depend on when the actual parking time begins after of course reading the signs and deciding if they are acceptable. 

 

On returning to the car after shopping that can take time if there was a lot of shopping to load into the car plus if there were children, getting them strapped in or perhaps an invalid who would need more time to enter the car. Once you pull out, that is when the period of parking ends. but of course six years ago perhaps the car was held up by pedestrians or traffic on the way to the exit which which would have added extra time on to the entering and leaving scam that PE use, when in reality it was reducing the actual  parking period. As the car parks have a ten minute grace period at least, all you need to find is just eight minutes in between the arrival and departure when you were driving around the car park.

 

The other thing that has changed is that the addition of their spurious £60 is now a thing of the past though DCBL are doing their best to  ignore it.  PoFA2012  Schedule 4 s9 [d][1] states that the amount due is the amount quote on the NTK. This is confirmed by the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 section 9 

9. Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

It might be an idea to inform PE wthat DCBL have added those charges as PE do not as a rule add anything on to the £100.

 

So if you haven't revealed who the driver is and the PCN is not compliant you are not liable as the keeper PE will have a hard time getting the court to accept who was driving.

[dx100uk]

The limitation period would start from the date the driver parked there.

 

Thus the cause of action .... in breaking their implied contract -  though don't forget the issuance of the original claimform stops the clock.

 

Dx

[holmer444]

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.

[FTMDave]

Well, after finally being accepted into the COVID-positive club today suddenly I have loads of time on my hands to read Caggers' Witness Statements!

 

In 10-12 are you referring back to the lack of planning permission?  If so, it comes across in a confused manner.  Maybe change "10.  This puts ..." to "10.  This lack of planning permission puts ..."

 

The new government Code of Practice has led to us updating the Recovery of costs section.  Have a look around post 188 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/433268-ukpc-ltddcbl-2015-anpr-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-valley-retail-park-hesterman-way-croydon-claim-discontinued/page/8/#comments  It will probably be a couple of posts above or below post 188 as the post count can go wonky.  Anyway, there is a long post by me with a long bit in red which takes into account the new legislation.  That Cagger put the question of Interest in a small different section and I think that would be a good idea too.

 

But these are tiny changes - what you've prepared is superb. 

 

[holmer444]

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. 

[lookinforinfo]

When you receive their WS see if their photos of the car park match yours. Often they don't so it calls into question the accuracy of the rest of their WS.

[FTMDave]

Any update?  Did Simple Simon ever send you a WS?

[holmer444]

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 

[lookinforinfo]

I took a look at your old WS and found the signatories rather strange.

 

Simon Renshaw Smith usually signs for VCS but on that occasion it was signed by Alun Cockcroft -Commercial director. I have looked at their directors over the years and no-one by that name is registered.

The other signatory looks as if if should be signed by someone from Jones Lang Lasalle on behalf of Scottish Widows. It is supposedly signed by Paul Curson as a director. Once again I could find no director called Paul Curson.

Checking online under Jones lang lasalle I found several mentions of Paul Curson with regard to a company called Pallets ltd.  Further checking revealed a company called Curson Pallets Ltd with Paul Curson being listed as a director. I have no idea if he is the same person who signed the contract with VCS. If he was then I would have thought that he should not be able to sign for jones lang Lasalle as he was not and is not a director of that company. Nor should he be able to sign for Jones Lang Lasalle when they are signing on behalf of  Scottish Widows.

 

The upshot is that I think the contract is not valid because neither signatory appears to be a director of the company they are purporting to sign for. Perhaps here are others on the Forum who could confirm that. If they can then it would confirm your statement that you did not enter into a contractual contract with VCS. you couldn't because there is no valid contract. so put to strict proof that the contract is valid.