PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

VCS Sheffield County Court Claim Form Received
Qazitory
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



VCS have been sending me letters for a PCN related to '40) Parked in a Disabled space without clearly displaying a valid disabled persons badge' related to 27/03/17.

The car is registered in my name, but I was not driving at that time. I know who was but I haven’t disclosed their details to VCS. They did have a disabled badge as the passenger had one. They were visiting the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield for the gym. I was not there, I was at home.

With every letter I have received, I have repeatedly told them I am not responsible for the debt and to stop contacting me.... but the letters always continue either from them (VCS) or the ‘debt' companies – DRP or Zenith.

I have acknowledged the claim online, although I’m working through the help guide.

Is it just a case I deny the charge as I was not in charge of the vehicle at the time? I can’t go into details of parking space as I was not present at the time?? Do I need to prove where I was?

I have copes of the emails/letters sent apart from the PCN from the time, as I can’t find it as it was so long ago (the driver gave it me).

This post has been edited by Qazitory: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Qazitory @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:00) *
related to 27/03/07.

I'm confused, is that the date of parking and they have waited 11 years to rasie a claim?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:09
Post #3


Member


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



VCS can recover payment from you as the registered keeper if it's met the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act

Its parking notices, however, usually fail to include the required information

There's also a catch for them that they can't recover more than the amount of the original parking charge
Their additional DRP etc charges are none of your concern

I assume the date 27/03/07 is a typo
POFA was introduced in late 2012 and The Limitation Act prevents them bringing a claim for an event more than six years ago

This post has been edited by Redivi: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:06) *
QUOTE (Qazitory @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:00) *
related to 27/03/07.

I'm confused, is that the date of parking and they have waited 11 years to rasie a claim?


Sorry should have read 17 not 07!!

QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:09) *
VCS can recover payment from you as the registered keeper if it's met the conditions of the Protection of Freedoms Act

Its parking notices, however, usually fail to include the required information

There's also a catch for them that they can't recover more than the amount of the original parking charge
Their additional DRP etc charges are none of your concern

I assume the date 27/03/07 is a typo
POFA was introduced in late 2012 and The Limitation Act prevents them bringing a claim for an event more than six years ago


Is it worth me taking a photo of the signs displayed in their car park? I've never even been in the car park, but I wasn't sure if I could mention them in my defence as I wasn't the driver?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:20
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If you were not the driver and they have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA (and nearly always do fail) then they have no claim against you AT ALL.

But yes, even though not the driver if you can show that the signs are so deficient that the driver couldn't enter a contract to pay, then of course that is relevant.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 12:32
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:20) *
If you were not the driver and they have failed to meet the requirements of PoFA (and nearly always do fail) then they have no claim against you AT ALL.

But yes, even though not the driver if you can show that the signs are so deficient that the driver couldn't enter a contract to pay, then of course that is relevant.


Thanks I'll take a trip later today to get a picture of the signs, also I've requested the DVLA to list the dates of anyone that has requested the owner details of the vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 13:31
Post #7


Member


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



I've never even been in the car park, but I wasn't sure if I could mention them in my defence as I wasn't the driver?

Your defence can say that you do not know what signs were present at the time of the alleged parking event but, after receiving the claim, you visited the site
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 14:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 14:31) *
I've never even been in the car park, but I wasn't sure if I could mention them in my defence as I wasn't the driver?

Your defence can say that you do not know what signs were present at the time of the alleged parking event but, after receiving the claim, you visited the site


I've just been down and I can actually understand why the spaces would be missed as disabled.

The road markings are hardly visible and would have been invisible on a Monday night at 9.30pm on March.

There is a sign about the disabled parking but it's facing the opposite way to where the car pull in.

Would this be worth mentioning as part of the appeal??

https://ibb.co/cJecSK
https://ibb.co/kgAj7K
https://ibb.co/hafvEz

This post has been edited by Qazitory: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 14:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 15:18
Post #9


Member


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



It's not an appeal; it's a defence

You say that the passenger displayed a Blue Badge so why does it matter if the painted signs were faded ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 20:56
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (Redivi @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 16:18) *
It's not an appeal; it's a defence

You say that the passenger displayed a Blue Badge so why does it matter if the painted signs were faded ?


I wasn't there though so I can't prove the badge was showing sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 21:21
Post #11


Member


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



It's not for you to prove

It's for the claimant to prove that it wasn't
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 12:34
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



Sorry I have been ill, so I haven't had time to dedicate to this.

I have relooked at my statement after reading other threads, and I'd be grateful for any comments so I can scan and send ready for tomorrow's deadline.


In the County Court

Claim Number: ********

Between:

Vehicle Control Services Limited
2 Europa Court
Sheffield Business Park
Sheffield
S9 1XE
(Claimant)
-and-

[personal details removed]
(Defendant)
__________________________________________________ _________________________

DEFENCE
__________________________________________________ _________________________
Preliminary

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver and for the reasons stated below and denies that she is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all. Each and every allegation in the Particulars of Claim is denied.
2. The facts are that the vehicle in question was parked at the English Institute of Sport in Sheffield on Monday, **th of ****, 20**. The driver (not the defendant) and passenger were visiting the gym facilities in the building.

Failure to comply with the procedural requirements of POFA 2012

3. No evidence has been supplied by the Claimant as to who parked the vehicle. The Defendant was at their home address during the stated time so could not agree to the terms of such parking.
4. Keeper liability has not passed in accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 (also referred to as PoFA). For the Claimant to recover the parking charge from the Defendant, the Claimant must have followed the strict requirements in the PoFA 2012 Schedule 4, which provides that liability can be transferred from driver to keeper. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. This distinguishes the case from Elliott v Loake [1982] in which there was irrefutable evidence of the driver’s identity. PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with and the claimant may not quote reasonable assumption. In the case of Excel v Mr L. (17/11/2016, Skipton), the judge dismissed the claim, summing up that: ether the claimant could prove the defendant was the driver, which they could not; or the claimant could comply with PoFA to pursue the defendant as the keeper, which it was proved they did not. In POPLA’s ‘Annual Report of the Lead Adjudicator 2015’, on ‘Understanding Keeper Liability’, the expert opinion of PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, was that:
‘However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. Any evidence in this regard may therefore be highly relevant.’
5. Schedule 4 of PoFA also states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper under keeper liability is the amount specified on the notice to keeper. None of the sums whether separately or jointly as a total correspond with the amounts on the notices to keeper therefore the claimant has failed to comply with the provisions. Therefore, the Defendant has no liability in law and the court is invited to strike out this claim with immediate effect.
6. Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the PoFA stipulate the mandatory information that must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all this information is not present, then the Notice to Keeper is invalid.
7. Contact by the defendant was made via email with every letter received, although no response was ever received, apart from generic letter received via the post. A request was made under the GDPR for all personal information relating the Defendant and the vehicle. These requests have been repeatedly ignored.

No contract on any terms

8. A contract was never formed. There was never a contractual relationship, whether categorised as a licence or some form of contractual permission, because the signage is not adequate. Photographs of the area can be provided as the yellow disabled road markings are faded. Two small signs which state the area is for disabled parking, are pointed away from the road so are unreadable to drivers. Also the road conditions at 8.45pm on a Monday night in March would have all the markings completely unreadable. The passenger in the car also had a valid disabled pass and was entitled to park there. Failure to provide clear signage relating to charges and terms of parking invalidates any alleged contract between the claimant and the driver let alone the keeper.
9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 as per the PCN issued on 27/03/17 to £160 on subsequent correspondence. This appears to be an added cost with no /apparent qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

The agreed damages clause is a penalty

10. The signage provides for a parking charge of £100 if the terms and conditions of parking are breached. The Claimant seeks £185 which is an extravagant and unconscionable penalty.
11. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis the Supreme Court recast the test to be applied when seeking to distinguish a liquidated damages clause from a penalty clause. To engage a penalty the question was whether the relevant provision was “unconscionable” or “extravagant” (Lord Hodge at [221]). The full test was expounded by Lord Hodge (at [255]).
12. The Supreme Court was only prepared to accept a charge (£85) that was sufficient to act as a disincentive and that was worth collecting. The Supreme Court had previously stated that £135 would be unacceptable (ParkingEye v Somerfield). The charge to the Defendant of £120 is evidently extravagant and unconscionable in that it is disproportionate to the Claimant’s interest, and disproportionate to the highest level of damages that could possibly arise from the Defendant’s alleged breach of contract.
13. The Defendant therefore disputes the amount claimed, as it comprises excessive and non-contractual elements, and costs must be proved. With reference to paragraph 31, the Claimant claims a sum of £185 as a ‘parking charge’ (for which liability is denied).
14. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge before a Notice to Keeper is issued. In any event the Protection of Freedoms Act is clear that a vehicle keeper would only be liable for the amount of the penalty charge notice, and no further costs.
15. I would like the Court to take note that I was aggressively harassed by letter after letter from different collection agencies, despite not being liable.
16. The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim for the above grounds or at the very least order better particulars and evidence from the claimant in order for the defence to be properly based on the facts of the case. The defendant invites the court to dismiss any evidence which the claimant wishes to rely on during the hearing if this is not disclosed to the defendant prior.


The defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.


.................................................. ............. ...........................

(Name) (Date)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 12:50
Post #13


Member


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



The whole intention of POFA is to transfer liability to the keeper. You are stating that as the don't have the identity of the driver they cannot use POFA to claim from the Keeper.

You haven't defined the POFA fails. Not strictly necessary but would help to identify the section not complied with.

You have not mentioned that the BB was displayed and therefore therefore the claim it was not displayed is without merit. put this close to the top.

The Disabled bay markings were not only not visible but the other normal indications of a disabled bay, such as the wider areas to the side, were not there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 13:11
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 13:50) *
The whole intention of POFA is to transfer liability to the keeper. You are stating that as the don't have the identity of the driver they cannot use POFA to claim from the Keeper.

You haven't defined the POFA fails. Not strictly necessary but would help to identify the section not complied with.

You have not mentioned that the BB was displayed and therefore therefore the claim it was not displayed is without merit. put this close to the top.

The Disabled bay markings were not only not visible but the other normal indications of a disabled bay, such as the wider areas to the side, were not there.


Thanks, I will update the statement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 14:27
Post #15


Member


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



Why is there nothing in there about the passenger having a blue badge and being entitled to use a disabled bay?

EDIT, found that hidden in #8.

Bring it nearer the top, in the facts (make sure you are admitting or denying everything the Particulars say).

Was the windscreen 'PCN' in fact not one at all, but a 'myparkingcharge.co.uk' effort in an envelope emblazoned THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE?

If so, you can plagiarise some of this VCS defence I wrote on MSE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...02#post74816302

It talks about the CN not being a PCN, then the NTK being premature and non POFA. Even if you can't recall, you can tell, if there was a windscreen effort and then the NTK arrived too soon, before 28 days.

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 14:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qazitory
post Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 17:24
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 9 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,796



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 7 Oct 2018 - 15:27) *
Why is there nothing in there about the passenger having a blue badge and being entitled to use a disabled bay?

EDIT, found that hidden in #8.

Bring it nearer the top, in the facts (make sure you are admitting or denying everything the Particulars say).

Was the windscreen 'PCN' in fact not one at all, but a 'myparkingcharge.co.uk' effort in an envelope emblazoned THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE?

If so, you can plagiarise some of this VCS defence I wrote on MSE:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...02#post74816302

It talks about the CN not being a PCN, then the NTK being premature and non POFA. Even if you can't recall, you can tell, if there was a windscreen effort and then the NTK arrived too soon, before 28 days.


I can't find the original PCN notice but I definitely have another look for it!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 07:56
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