PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

VCS County Claim form received, Probably need some help with DEFENCE and other bits
Lape
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 18:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



Hello everyone,

More than a year ago, my partner received a letter 'FINAL REMINDER', for parking and not paying on Albert Street, Birmingham B5 5JH. We checked it on googlemaps, and it's a small street with only 4 parking spaces for disabled. He swore, he never even stopped there. We checked VCS provided link for evidence, and the system couldn't find any. So we decided it's a scam and binned the letter.
9 MONTHS later, he received LBC form VCS. We wrote the letter back, denying he was a driver, asking why he never received PCN, requesting for photos and the detailed explanation were exactly the car breached the laws. Reply came a week after. They told us they have sent the PCN, added it's 'copy' and photos, but did't explained where was the place of the 'crime'.
After spending some time on googlemaps, I have realized that Albert street and the the given post code doesn't match. The problem is, there is an actual Albert Street parking, NCP Albert Street car park, and car park that comes under name Albert Street car park, but on internet the last one is showed as Excel, and instead of postcode B5 5JH it comes under address Freeman Street B5 5HT and falls out of the area of the postcode indicated in the letter. It took me a while to find out the ends...
So we came back after holiday and found the Country Claim form and the Particulars of Claim .
* I would like to ask you, would it be possible to win, proving that the Site Name stated in letters from VCS as 'Albert Street Birmingham B5 5JH' is unclear and misleading, because it doesn't say that it's a car park in first place, there is no street address indicated, and the site doesn't belong to that post code?
* One more thing, it's said that the contravention day is 26/04 and issue date of NTK 10/05, which means it's already 15 days gap + days of service. Does it mean they can't legally pursue my partner as a keeper?

This post has been edited by southpaw82: Wed, 30 May 2018 - 20:49
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 18:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 20:31
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Country claim
= County (not being funny, details are important and you need to be focussed when defending a claim).

QUOTE
parking and not paying on Albert Street, Birmingham B5 5JH. We checked it on googlemaps, and it's a small street with only 4 parking spaces for disabled.
No it's a well known scam car park site:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...reet-claim.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...ert-street.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...iscontinue.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-bogus-100.html

QUOTE
* I would like to ask you, would it be possible to win,
Almost certainly, with our help! We rarely see any lost here.

QUOTE
...proving that the Site Name stated in letters from VCS as 'Albert Street Birmingham B5 5JH' is unclear and misleading, because it doesn't say that it's a car park in first place, there is no street address indicated, and the site doesn't belong to that post code?
That's a minor point, compared to the usual stuff that goes into any defence v VCS at Albert Street!


QUOTE
* One more thing, it's said that the contravention day is 26/04 and issue date of NTK 10/05, which means it's already 15 days gap + days of service. Does it mean they can't legally pursue my partner as a keeper?

Yes, but they couldn't anyway, because the wording of the NTK doesn't invoke keeper liability. Read it - the NTK says we 'assume you were the driver' so that's not a POFA PCN at all, regardless of date served.

Search this forum and MSE parking forum for the words VCS Albert Street defence or Google the same words and read forum posts from 2017 or 2018 (no older!!) to find defences already written. You can crib from them and adapt what they said, when other posters won their cases. You will find quite a few. Only look at MSE and pepipoo, not other forums.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 20:48
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Without a windscreen ticket the Notice to keeper has to be delivered within 14 days. Posting the letter on day 14 is insufficient, POFA assumes 2 working days for delivery Here's POFA, look at section 9. It's got the conditions for the 14 days 9 (4) and the delivery 9 (6). They have therefore lost the right to claim from the keeper. They don't know whether they are claiming against the keeper or the driver.

They can only claim the amount of the original PCN from the keeper so if it is decided that the keeper is liable then the original £100 is all that is due (+ court costs)

Yes they have to define the land 9 (2) (a) so that the keeper knows what it is about. a name and a random post code is not good enough

And looking at the signs in the car park in April 2017 they are for Excel parking. If there was any parking, which is denied, then the contract is with Excel and VCS are strangers in the matter and cannot havfe a valid claim.. It's the old VCS Excel switcheroo. the companies are connected but they are legally separate entities. If you contract with one then the other can't make a claim. This will be high up in your defence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 21:08
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



Ohh, sorry for typo mistakes....I've read all the cases on parking prankster related to this car park and VCS. They've got more clever now. The signs on a car park have been changed, and now says that VCS is the operator (probably thanks to parking prankster). They have sent us Particulars of Claim with the letter announcing that they made a claim, so there is no more delay with this. I'm just a bit confused about dates:
*parking fine received - 26/04/17
*NTK issued - 10/05/17 (>15 days after)
*PCN issued - 12/06/17
*LBC issued - 06/02/18 so thats 8 months after?!
*Intentions to start Court Proceedings - 24/03/18 giving me 14 days notice
*Particulars of claim issued - 27/04/18 (32 days later)
*Claim Form from CC Business Centre issued 27/04/18

Is there anything wrong with the dates?
How it's possible that they issued me the letter about the claim together with particulars the same date the claim form from CC was issued?

I need to acknowledge the service till next Wednesday. I'm going to call to the court tomorrow. Me and my partner are foreigners, and I would like to be sure we're going to have an interpreter...

This post has been edited by Lape: Thu, 3 May 2018 - 21:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Thu, 3 May 2018 - 23:04
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
*LBC issued - 06/02/18 so thats 8 months after?!
So? We have people with 2018 VCS or Excel claims re PCNs dating from 2012!
QUOTE
Is there anything wrong with the dates?
No. Already said that regardless of dates, VCS do not use POFA so can't hold keepers liable.

QUOTE
How it's possible that they issued me the letter about the claim together with particulars the same date the claim form from CC was issued?
Why not, nothing wrong with these dates.

QUOTE
I need to acknowledge the service till next Wednesday.
Do the AOS online, as shown here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/m...wledge.pdf?dl=0



QUOTE
I'm going to call to the court tomorrow.

No you are not, this is not the court your case will end up at, that will be your local court this Summer.

QUOTE
Me and my partner are foreigners, and I would like to be sure we're going to have an interpreter...
That comes much later, once the case is allocated and your local court write to you with a hearing date and a date by which to submit your evidence and witness statement.

Stop concentrating on the wrong things.

Once you have done the AOS online, show us your defence draft. You will have seen lots of good ones about Albert Street from the Google search I suggested you do, in my final paragraph above. Read some defences just like yours, and copy their words and show us your version.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 4 May 2018 - 07:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed

OP, you have to relaise you are now in a set process, with a set sequence of events you MUST follow to get the best outcome

First, acknowledge online, as told to do. Once you do that you have the full 33 days from DATE OF ISSUE of the claim form for the court to receive your SIGNED defence, via email.

Then you get onto the next step
Then the next

as told above, concentrate on the next step and get that right. Youre jumping ahead when you dont even know, for sure, which court you case will be allocated ot - usually the one closest, but if it has a full docket it will be moved.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Fri, 4 May 2018 - 08:37
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



Ok, I've already wrote a draft for a defence, just need to fix a few things before submitting to forum. Just one question, is it possible to ask to alocate the Court in B'ham area. The car is registered on his sis address 100miles away, just because she has a plenty of parking, and he only uses it now when his daily commuter -motorbike, needs fixing smile.gif

This post has been edited by Lape: Fri, 4 May 2018 - 08:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 4 May 2018 - 08:56
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



When you get to the step after submitting your defence, you can ask for a specific court. State the Defendant resides at X and Y court is the closest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 08:33
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



Good morning, so today I wanted to do AOS, and even if it looks very dead simple I would like to clarify a few points before completing it:

Statement of truth point. They are asking if I'm a defendant or Litigation friend. I'm doing it on behalf of my fiance, and I would like to go with him to the court and speak for him to, as it was my idea after all.
So if, I'll mark that I'm a Litigation friend, do I need to change all the previous information (name, surname etc.) to my one. Or do I leave his and only mark Litigation friend statement?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 08:58
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Moneyclaim doesn't employ any legally qualified staff

My personal view is that you shouldn't present them with anything out of the the ordinary and the safe answer is for your fiance to sign the statement of truth himself
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 10:19
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Statement of truth. Are you by any chance submitting your defence as well? You do not need to do so at this time. You have 33 days from the date of issue to submit the defence as long as you have acknowledged within 14 days.

AOS is on line using the details and password on the form.

The person who the claim is issued against should be the one that signs. Saves complications.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 10:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



The Statement of Truth was the last step before completing the AOS =) feeling exited and nervous, I've never been summoned to the court before.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 12:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



It's not summonsed, that's for criminal matters (though one has the feeling that shold be for the parking companies.

Forget what you see on TV the court is no more than a large room with 3 people in it. The judge, the claimant and the defendant. The judge is the one wil the bigger desk. Your can speak for your parner but only with permission of the judge. Look around or wait for comment about the rules.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 7 May 2018 - 23:34
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
I'm doing it on behalf of my fiance,

No, you are not.

Don't fall at the first hurdle by doing the AOS in the wrong name. Obviously the person named on the AOS is your fiance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Thu, 10 May 2018 - 17:59
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



I'm not going to put the top bit in, only the text of defense for an easier correction. I'm sorry for my phrase construction mistakes, but I did my best trying to put some bits together. I might add some more bits related to VCS if my suspicions will come true. On my PC the font is 12 Bookman Old 1.5 Paragraph.

DEFENSE

It is acknowledged that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

1. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the Court process by using the threat of action and the threat of damaging the Defendants credit rating to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.

2. The Claimant alleges that a Parking Charge Notice was issued on 26/04/2017. The Defendant brings the court's attention to ParkingEye v Beavis in that, "the Secretary of State is empowered to make available particulars in the vehicle register to anyone who “has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him”. I put the Claimant to strict proof that the vehicle was in fact parked on the land as alleged.

3. The Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds:-
(a) The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable, however, there is no evidence to show that the registered keeper was the driver, PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort" (POPLA report 2015). It is unreasonable for the Defender to remember who may have been driving on the relevant date 9 month ago.
(b) Claimants Notice to Keeper (received only after the Defendant asked for copies of documents which would substantiate the claim and/or support a cause of action) is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and thus the Claimant cannot pursuit the Defendant as the Keeper. (contaversion date 26/04/2017 – PCK posted 10/05/17, am I right?)
© Claimants Notice to Keeper fails on 9(2)(a) of PoFA because it fails to adequately identify the relevant land:
(i) “ breaching the Terms and Conditions situated at Albert Street, Birmingham, B5 5JH”. The location has no mention it to be a car park that this Claimant runs, nor has an exact address indicated, thus it’s not clear which out of three ‘Albert Street’ parking locations it is: Albert Street Parking, NCP Albert Street or Albert Street Car Park.
(ii) The Claimant’s car park official address of Albert Street car park is “Freeman Street, Birmingham, B5 5HT”, not as stated Albert Street, Birmingham, B5 5JH.
(iii) The post code B5 5JH indicated in the Letter Before Claim is incorrect, as it belongs to the Park Street according Google.co.uk, Parkopedia.co.uk postcodearea.co.uk and getthedata.com sources, and has no common land borders with Albert Street.
(iv) The Claimant provided the Defendant with incorrect details, there can be no breach of contract.

4. The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)© or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). However, in addition to the original ‘parking charge’, believed to be £100, for which liability is denied, additional unsubstantiated charges have been added to the sum claimed.

5. It is denied that any "parking charge notice" costs as stated on the Particulars of claim are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety. The date of the alleged incident is 26/04/2017 as per the particulars of claim which is over 9 months before the first correspondence from the Claimant. It is perplexing as to why the Claimant waited until now to bring proceedings.

6. The claim form itself is vague and lacks pertinent information as to the grounds for the Claimant’s case. The particulars of claim fail to meet CRP16.4 and PD16 7.3-7.5 and merely provide some basic information and an "amount" consisting of a completely unsubstantiated three-figure sum, adduced by the Claimant's solicitors. Because of this, the Defendant has had to cover all eventualities in defending such a 'copy & paste' claim which has caused significant distress and has denied him a fair chance to defend this claim in an informed way. Therefore, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person the Defendant respectfully asks that he be permitted to amend and/or supplement this defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

7. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims, it is believed the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The Defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to his significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

8. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services LTD.
(a) Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

9. In the pre court stage the Claimant did not send a Letter before Claim that complied with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Claim can be seen to miss the following information:
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which the Defendant intends to rely.
c) How the “principal debt + initial legal costs” of 160 pounds has been calculated and justified.

10. The lack of diligence in this claim demonstrates admirably that at best a ‘copy and paste’ is the closest a human, legally trained or not, came to the information transmitted from Claimant to the Money Claims Online system. There are no real costs and POFA prevents claims exceeding the sum on the original parking notice.

11. The Defendant suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

12. The alleged debt as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

13. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This Claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

14. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added legal fees/costs are simply made up numbers, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant.

15. It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

16. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

17. The Defendant requests the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above, and for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to the template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

The Claimant has brought a claim that discloses no cause of action. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is abusing the Court process by using the threat of action and the threat of damaging the Defendants credit rating to alarm the Defendant into making a payment that is not owed.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

This post has been edited by Lape: Wed, 16 May 2018 - 05:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 05:55
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



Good Saturday morning to all good people in here. Could you please check my Defence? It's here, just one post up rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:07
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



2 (b) the notice to driver is the windscreen ticket. Do you mean Notice to Keeper? Difficult to send a Notice to Driver by post as they don't know who the driver was. Was there a windscreen ticket?

So the alleged breach was 26/04/17 and the Notice to Keeper was sent 10/05/17 (your dates in post #4 are confusing) If not notice to keeper then were did the 28 days you mention come from? Without a windscreen notice the Notice to keeper has to be received within 14 days.

Your point 3 about POFA compliance fails to mention 9 (5) the requirement to deliver (ie received by the keeper) within the relevant period defined in 9 (5) and the assumption of delivery in 9 (6). This point means that the keeper cannot be held liable.

You may care to look at this thread where they are at about the same stage as you. It has also been mentioned that the contractual name on the sign is Excel (they give the full identifying details to create a contract) and VCS are a stranger to the contract and therefore have no rights to raise a claim.

This post has been edited by ostell: Sat, 12 May 2018 - 08:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 19:18
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 12 May 2018 - 09:07) *
2 (b) the notice to driver is the windscreen ticket. Do you mean Notice to Keeper? Difficult to send a Notice to Driver by post as they don't know who the driver was. Was there a windscreen ticket?

So the alleged breach was 26/04/17 and the Notice to Keeper was sent 10/05/17 (your dates in post #4 are confusing) If not notice to keeper then were did the 28 days you mention come from? Without a windscreen notice the Notice to keeper has to be received within 14 days.

Your point 3 about POFA compliance fails to mention 9 (5) the requirement to deliver (ie received by the keeper) within the relevant period defined in 9 (5) and the assumption of delivery in 9 (6). This point means that the keeper cannot be held liable.


There wasn't any windscreen ticket, they have cameras. I've made a mistake putting this paragraph in.
I have fixed my point 3 into :

(b) Claimants Notice to Keeper (received only after the Defendant asked for copies of documents which would substantiate the claim and/or support a cause of action) is not compliant with Schedule 4, 9 (5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”, and thus the Claimant cannot pursuit the Defendant as the Keeper.

Does it looks more clear now?

I wonder if it's possible somehow to look at the defenses of people who won vs vcs/excel with parking prankster? There is one successful case, where someone won on the basis of authority: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...ng-v-booth.html

This post has been edited by Lape: Mon, 14 May 2018 - 19:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 20:02
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



DEFENSE should read DEFENCE

QUOTE
I wonder if it's possible somehow to look at the defenses of people who won vs vcs/excel with parking prankster? There is one successful case, where someone won on the basis of authority
Not unless they paid for a transcript, which that person didn't.

Nothing to stop you using a PP Blog though, alongside transcripts such as those you find when you Google Parking Prankster case law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lape
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 20:28
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,812



If this word is the only one that I wrote wrong, I could be proud about my English getting better. I'm sure in my word doc it's spelled right =)

And massive thank you for the hint about case law, I've already found some cases that could fit my or flabbergasted cases!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:58
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here