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

[FTMDave]

On another thread Nicky Boy mentioned how their staff are underpaid, undertrained, unmotivated, and just used to dealing with a conveyor belt of cases that all go through the same procedure.  So they will have in front of them something like -

 

Send PCN

Send reminder

Send threat

Get DCA to send threat

Get solicitors to send threat

 

- and as your PCN was in the last stage they tell you to reply to the solicitors.  They won't understand what a Letter Before Claim arriving at their office is, never mind GDPR.

 

You could laugh at them and ignore them.

 

However, I always think it's better to prepare too much than too little when in legal dispute, plus to bear in mind that the correspondence may very well end up in front of a judge.  So I'd be tempted to reply -

 

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Re: Letter Before Claim, Breach of GDPR, PCN no.XXXXX, County Court Claim no.XXXXX

 

thank you for your reply to my Letter Before Claim for damages for distress regarding your GDPR breach.

 

The letter has been properly delivered to you today 10 April, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol.

 

If you wish to instruct counsel, that is purely a matter for yourself.

 

Tick, tock.

 

Yours,

                 XXXXX

 

 

However, hang on this afternoon a bit to see if the other regulars have comments.

Edited April 10, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[Nicky Boy]

It isn't yet a case.

It's a letter of claim,  so surely DCBL should be replying, otherwise how can you possibly know they've been instructed?

[FTMDave]

The poor YTS kid they had working today will have typed the PCN number into the computer, seen "passed to DCBL" and just acted on that.  They won't even know what a Letter Before Claim is.

 

@holmer444 As no-one has objected, send what I wrote above this evening.  Note I've just edited it slightly.  Copy to  litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk  so they will have no excuses about the right people not receiving it.

 

An hour later send the SAR Letter Before Claim.  Then the ball will be in Simple Simon's court tomorrow.

[brassnecked]

Should focus their tiny minds, however they are so programmed to suing people, they might take a while to realise they have a potential claim going in against them.  That works in your favour if they ignore the LOC.

[holmer444]

Thanks for the help/comments/support and apologies for the radio silence, both letters went in yesterday as per FTMDave's excellent advice...now we wait 

[EL21]

I'd just like to add that I'm really enjoying this thread. VCS are so scummy - am very glad you're going after this - good luck, @holmer444!

[FTMDave]

Good to hear from you EL21.

 

With you on the thread Simple Simon should be very, very afraid!

[brassnecked]

Simple simon has good reason to be afraid, he lost two cases to EL21

[FTMDave]

So eight days have passed.

 

Time to draft two Particulars of Claim.

[holmer444]

Thanks Dave, just so I'm clear, one PoC for the SAR failure and one for the unlawful request of my data? 

 

Will they be filed as two separate claims with two separate claim amounts or will they be one claim with two sets of particulars? I presumed the former, but in my reading up I saw a post from fruitsalad in the EPS thread that said:

 

OP could litigate the matters separately however they have an obligation to unburden the court and it is probably expected that OP should issue a single claim for all the damages known to have resulted from EPS's unlawful activities.

 

So wasn't entirely sure what would be the right option as I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with the court so to speak.

[FTMDave]

To me they are two separate issues so two separate claims.  Plus, if by some horror something were to go wrong with one claim you'd still have the other.

 

However, FruitSalad is very knowledgeable about these matters and I think we should wait for their advice.

 

Maybe knock up two versions.  PoCs are very brief anyway.

[FruitSalad1010]

The advantage to you of issuing two separate claims is that it would keep the issues entirely separate in the mind of the court and as FTMDave wrote if one claim fails the other survives. However equally it would bring two opportunities to fail and two opportunities for potential costs. That being said you should probably expect that the claims would be allocated to the small claims track given their value and therefore costs would be limited, perhaps no more than £50. You may run a small risk that it is later considered the claims should have been issued together, however courts do have case management powers and given you are a litigant in person who should be afforded some discretion one would hope that any consequences aren't too unpalatable.

You may find that a claim solely for compensation (provided it is a small sum) following their failure to disclose your data, isn't contested. Therefore reducing the number of claims to one, namely the unlawful processing of your data.

The advantage of a single claim is that if you win on any point in terms of liability then that should be the end to the issue of costs. The downside (if you see it that way) is that they may choose to defend the entirety of your claim as a matter of course and due to the increased value. In addition it may be that in the interest of being fair to both sides the court reduces the value of any award perhaps by considering each cause of action to encompass one breach.

If you issue a claim using MCOL the space is fairly limited but you can probably keep both causes of action clear in the mind of the court and still fit the entirety of the particulars on the claim form. If you issue a claim using the beta version of the County Court Money Claims Centre then more space is afforded to write without having to issue a separate particulars of claim. The system will ask you for more information as you progress, however it appears there is a risk that claims issued to the CCMCC may soon be eligible for automatic referral for a decision to be made on the papers only. I fear if that were to become standard practice it could be risky for a litigant in person for a number of reasons.

The merits of either approach are somewhat variable and unknown, at least to me and it may be that you would be able to better help others by reporting back on your experience depending on what you choose to do.

I'm not really up to date on your exact history with VCS. It would be helpful if you could clarify exactly how many claims VCS have issued against you, what the outcome was of each claim and when it occurred.

[holmer444]

Thank you for replies folks. @FruitSalad1010, VCS have taken me to court twice for separate parking 'infringements' and separate judges have awarded in my favour both times. 

 

First case was an 'infringement' on 24 December 2019, I  arrived in the car park at 11.10, did some shopping and left left at 11.47. Later in the day I returned to the same car park arriving back at around 14.30 and left at 14.52. VCS 'double dipped' and claimed I was parked there from 11.10 - 14.52. We went to court on 5 July 21, I presented google maps data from my mobile phone showing my movements and the judge ruled in my favour.

 

Second case was an 'infringement' on 11 June 2016, this was an overstay of 18 minutes, i.e. in the car park 78 minutes in total. We went to court on 30 January 23, I presented the parking contract between VCS and the land owner (received as part of their evidence pack) which included a schedule entitled The Parking Policy which contains the clause - 3.  A minimum "Grace" period of thirty minutes will be utilised over the maximum stay period before a parking charge notice is issued". Judge ruled in my favour based on the fact that the PCN breached their own contract with the landowner. 

 

Just to finish the story, since the above. 

 

I sent a SAR request to VCS on the 7th March which was responded to on the 7th April. My SAR letter included both PCN references and the sentence; Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me for the entire period of my dealings with you dating back to 2016. The email received back came from WeTransfer and contained two folders, the first referenced the PCN reference of the 24/12/19 infringement and contained 20 documents. The second referenced the PCN of the 11/6/16 infringement and only contained 1 document which was a copy of their workflow system and the data held there, not any of the many letters they sent me (most, if not all of which I believe I still have).

 

The email from WeTransfer came with a standard email response that was signed by a Mark Robinson, Debt and litigation manager, Excel Parking Services Ltd with an email address at Excel Parking. I understand the two companies operate out of the same address and this is the address I have used in my dealings with VCS, but I have never had any dealings with Excel Parking so uncertain as to whether or not this is a further breach? 

 

On 9 April I issued a Letter Before Claim regarding the SAR failure (post #67 of this thread) to which they replied with: 

 

This case is currently with DCB Legal and any query would need to be made directly to them. You can contact them by phone on 0203 434 0437 or email info@dcblegal.co.uk

 

To which I responded with the letter FTMDave suggested in post #76 on 10 April. Also on the 10 April I sent a Letter Before Claim regarding their GDPR breach in requesting my data from DVLA (post #48) demanding they pay £1,000 in 14 days.

 

One final question if I may - the SAR breach letter of claim contained no demand for payment so if I were to submit 2 actions against VCS, do I split the amount demanded between the two (e.g. £500 in both) or ask for £1,000 in each?

[holmer444]

Righto, drafted some particulars of claim, for the SAR failure;

 

The claimant submitted a subject access request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018 to Vehicle Control Services Limited on 7 March 2023. 

 

The Defendant has failed to make a full disclosure and has therefore breached the statutory deadline. This failure is still continuing today. 

 

The defendant's breach of their statutory duty and the claimant's inability to access their personal data has caused them serious issues and distress. 

 

The claimant seeks damages for distress £xxx

[holmer444]

For the GDPR breach;

 

On 29 June 2016 the Defendant accessed my personal data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency without reasonable cause.

 

The Defendant used their access to my personal data to issue a county court claim against me which was totally without merit and was subsequently discontinued.

The Defendant's breach caused me considerable distress.

 

I seek damages for distress £xxx

 

 

[FruitSalad1010]

I think to help prevent facing issues later, it would be better to further particularise the distress you have suffered and indicate more clearly on which legislation your cause of action relies. It hasn't been referred to in the second set of particulars.

For the second claim to succeed at trial it is likely you will later have to make a well constructed argument, the more you come across as a competent and able litigant or maybe one that is receiving assistance the more any mistakes may cost you.

My understanding is that DCB Legal are not considered the best of the bunch, but in any case better not to leave things to chance.

Where you have specified an amount in a letter of claim you ought to stick to that amount on the claim form or at the very least not increase it.

 

[FTMDave]

Well done with the PoCs.

 

The claims need to be £200 for the SAR and £1000 for GDPR.

 

FruitSalad has pushed me to do some digging regarding previous distress claims on the site and you do need to mention something about distress.  It doesn't need to be complicated.  Just something like having to deal over XX months with a vexatious court claim ate up a huge amount of your free time meaning you neglected work/partner/kids/etc, it affected your sleep patterns,  it was particularly distressing having to appear in court to defend yourself against a baseless claim, you worried about the financial aspects of losing in court even though the case was ridiculous - something like that.

 

Two other changes to the PoCs.  In the SAR one - under the Data Protection Act 2018.

 

In the GDPR one - totally without merit and was subsequently dismissed in court.  The LoC you're using was for a discontinued case, the breach in your case is even worse as the fleecers went all the way to court.

 

It's a good idea to do a further draft of the GDPR PoCs to let us, and particularly FruitSalad, have the once over.

[holmer444]

Apologies for the silence, been a crazy couple of days. Bizarrely, I have received another email from my friend Mark Robinson at Excel Parking in response to my letter before claim that simply states:

 

Dear holmer444,

 

We have supplied all of the data that we hold in relation to both PCN's. We do not have any other data we can supply.

 

Regards

 

Other than re-drafting my PoC's is there anything else I should be doing?

 

[FTMDave]

You might as well sue immediately for the SAR one.  Mark has replied to the LoC and has refused to cooperate.

 

EDIT  I now see that 15 days have passed, so both claims can be started in any case.

 

Best for us to see revised PoCs first though.

Edited April 25, 2023 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[holmer444]

Thanks Dave I started with the GDPR breach PoC's, how does this now sound;

 

On 29 June 2016 the Defendant accessed my personal data held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency without reasonable cause.

 

The Defendant used their access to my personal data to issue a county court claim against me which was totally without merit and was subsequently dismissed in court.

The Defendant's breach caused me considerable distress. Having to deal with a vexatious claim over 18 months ate up a huge amount of time leading me to neglect my work and family and affected my sleep patterns. Particularly distressing was having to mentally prepare myself to appear in court twice with the original hearing on 24 November 2022 being adjourned because the Defendant's legal representative did not turn up to court. This unnecessarily elongated the process and caused further undue stress as I worried about the financial consequences of losing in court even though the Defendant's case was entirely without merit. 

 

I seek damages for distress £1,000

 

I've only gone back to 12 July 2021 (i.e. 18 months) for the time period of the distress as that was the date I received their LoC, is that right or should I go back to June 2016, that being the date VCS accessed my data and issued the original PCN?

Edited April 25, 2023 by holmer444

[holmer444]

Revised SAR PoC's

 

The Claimant submitted a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 2018 to Vehicle Control Services Limited on 7 March 2023. 

 

The Defendant has failed to make a full disclosure and has therefore breached the statutory deadline. This failure is still continuing today despite further correspondence with the Defendants data protection team and a reasonable response time given. 

 

The defendant's breach of their statutory duty and the claimant's inability to access their personal data has caused them serious issues and distress. The Defendant knowingly deceived the DVLA by telling them the Claimant had breached something the Defendant knew to be untrue and perpetuated that lie by having debt collectors and solicitors write to the Claimant in an attempt to force payment. This caused undue stress and embarrassment for the Claimant who lost sleep worrying that Bailiff's would visit his home in an attempt to try and force collection of payment.      

 

The Claimant seeks damages for distress £200.00

 

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

Let's not forget that it's excel who has replied, not Vcs.

Would it be prudent to wait for the full 30 days?

[holmer444]

They have already had the full 30 days @Nicky Boy. The original SAR request was made on 7 March.

[FTMDave]

Regarding the GDPR one, yes, you should go right back to the point where they contacted the DVLA, which is the date they started misusing your data ... you won't know that exactly, so the date you got the PCN is fine.

 

BTW, that is a cracking PoCs.

 

I'm not so sure about the SAR one, l think that needs more work.  More tomorrow.

 

Please don't just start the claim for the GDPR one immediately tomorrow, hang on a bit for FruitSalad's opinion.

[FTMDave]

I've made some alterations to the SAR one as their refusal to comply has occurred well after the court case so I don't think you can use the case as an example of distress.  I've instead referred to the GDPR case.

 

As scribbled above, 24 hours won't make any difference, so hang on for a day as @FruitSalad1010 is very knowledgeable about these matters and may want to comment.

 

The Claimant submitted a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 2018 to Vehicle Control Services Limited on 7 March 2023. 

 

The Defendant has failed to make a full disclosure and has therefore breached the statutory deadline. This failure is still continuing today despite further correspondence with the Defendant's data protection team and a reasonable response time given. 

 

The Defendant's breach of their statutory duty and the Claimant's inability to access their personal data has caused them serious issues and distress. The Defendant started a court claim against the Claimant in July 2021 and litigation between the parties is ongoing    It is very difficult for the Claimant to prepare for court action if the Defendant does not disclose important information and this failure is causing the Claimant considerable distress.      

 

The Claimant seeks damages for distress £200.00.