Summoned to County Court by VCS Parking, Help appreciated in fighting the case please! Options

[Bungle The Bear]

Hi All,

A parking charge notice was received by the registered keeper demanding they pay a significant fine for over-staying a free period in a private car park at a shopping centre.
this PCN was ignored on the basis that
1. The RK believed these notices could be ignored
2. The entry time to the car park claimed on the PCN was hours earlier than the vehicle could have been in said area
3. The photo evidence to support this is so dark, the vehicle and number plate is not visible. There is a clear picture however of the car leaving the car park.

The position of the driver is that the car was not on the car park site for the length of time claimed, therefore the PCN was ignored.

The final reminder PCN was also ignored, as was the debt recovery letter.

County Court Claim Forms have now arrived (which is where i get involved - the defendant named on CCC document is not in a position to contest these proceedings so i have stepped in to help)

As this has been brought to my attention very "last minute", i have only a couple of days to go online and do the click/register/acknowledge the claim piece which i know will then buy me 28 days to formulate a defence. I intend to do this very shortly, but am firstly seeking the advice of this wonderful forum as to whether this is the correct course of action?
Assuming it is, i'll then be very grateful on some assistance/advice on tailoring the defendants defence. (so to speak!)

I've attached the original (redacted) documents as i've seen requested in other similar threads on here i've been reading through.

I've also read that there seems to be a lot of query over who the parking companies are chasing in these cases - the RK or the driver? How to identify etc?
In this instance, it is a physical impossibility for the RK to be the driver and that can be proved unequivocally. Does this help the situation at all?

My initial questions to the board are:
1. do i go and acknowledge the case online now? Assuming leaving defence bit blank if i do?
2. Can anyone guide me as to what grounds the defendant should construct their defence on?
This can then be done and posted here for suggestions.

Thanks in advance to everyone!

BTB

[Advertisement]

[SchoolRunMum]

In this instance, it is a physical impossibility for the RK to be the driver and that can be proved unequivocally. Does this help the situation at all?

Yes!! Because VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable - unless you get a Judge who cannot see that the '28 warning / keeper liability' paragraph near the bottom of that NTK, doesn't match the timeline set out as mandatory under the statute (Schedule 4 of the POFA, para 9(2)f.

VCS say 'from the issue date of this notice'

Para 9(2)f requires by law 'from the day after the date of service of this notice' which can anything from 2 days to a week different depending on weekends/bank hols etc in between.

So, we would have any Defendant in your shoes argue that the Defendant cannot be held liable (search this forum and MSE parking forum, for defences with that wording in already).

The entry time to the car park claimed on the PCN was hours earlier than the vehicle could have been in said area

How can that possibly be? Wow... never seen that. Are you certain it wasn't two visits? I think the rk should send a SAR to VCS asking for all images of every time the car passed cameras within that location that day, and the unaltered list of all times it was captured (i.e. not just images but a system report).

Sounds like the rk Defendant might meet the definition of disability under the EA? Do they have a mobility condition and did they spend a few hours at the retail park that day and needed more time to get about (even if they didn't arrive as early as the first image says?). The EA might be worth including.

My initial questions to the board are:
1. do i go and acknowledge the case online now? Assuming leaving defence bit blank if i do?

Yes int he name of the Defendant only of course (so set up a Gvt Gateway a/c in their name not yours. You can't do it on their behalf.

2. Can anyone guide me as to what grounds the defendant should construct their defence on?

- No keeper liability - POFA failure. The rk cannot have been the driver so cannot be liable due to VCS being unable to rely on the POFA.

- the ANPR images are inaccurate and the car was not in the car park for one single period of parking from xx time to xx time. Suggest 2 visits or other ANPR system error and put VCS to strict proof.

- signs appear to be dark and therefore no contract formed, no terms visible

- EA (if the D was a passenger who needed a reasonable adjustment of time, regardless of whether the ANPR images are wrong).

- no landowner authority and no legitimate interest in penalising drivers for what either appears to be 2 visits, 2 parking events in one day, or a visit by a disabled passenger who needed more time (ANPR systems fail the disabled population at large - indirect discrimination)

Have a look at example defences here and on MSE parking forum (the latter has longer defences written by me and concise ones written by bargepole - try to use bargepole's one as a base but read the longer ones to see what else might apply).

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 19:59

[Bungle The Bear]

Thanks so much for the quick reply SRM!

Sounds like the rk Defendant might meet the definition of disability under the EA? Do they have a mobility condition and did they spend a few hours at the retail park that day and needed more time to get about (even if they didn't arrive as early as the first image says?). The EA might be worth including.

Nail on head, this is correct!
Sorry for stupid question, what is EA? (sorry i couldn't find it on acronym lookup lol)

Will go and acknowledge online in defendants name now and read up on bargepole defences as you advise.
Will come back here once drafted.

I've probably still got 20 questions but you've given me on hell of a starter for ten there, thanks!

How can that possibly be? Wow... never seen that. Are you certain it wasn't two visits? I think the rk should send a SAR to VCS asking for all images of every time the car passed cameras within that location that day, and the unaltered list of all times it was captured (i.e. not just images but a system report).

Also, the defendant and their companion on the date in question can not recall specific details but assumed that due to very early time tag on first entry image, that it was not possible to have been on site at that time. However, they could have remembered incorrectly or it's been a number of visits on same day.
Your SAR point is a good one but am i able to ask VCS for this now even as the case is going to court? If i can then i obviously will.
Love the discrimination point too - great suggestion!

[SchoolRunMum]

Equality Act 2010 - indirect discrimination.

Google it and find the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers and click on the document, then Control & F to search it for the word 'tours'. That gives an example of indirect discrimination by allowing an arbitrary time limit that doesn;t make any reasonable adjustment for the disabled population at large.

Also search the EHRC CoP for the word 'indirect' to understand what that form of discrimination is, and why the PPC cannot be heard to say ''we didn't know about this individual's mobility problems - her fault, why didn't she tell us...waaah!'

Your SAR point is a good one but am i able to ask VCS for this now even as the case is going to court?

Yes but it can't be YOU, must come from the Defendant (or you using the D's email!) attaching a copy of the V5C to prove he/she is the data subject in connection with that car. Send the SAR right now, look up the PPC's Privacy page and find the contact details for their Data protection Officer.

NOW, yes, never mind the claim as long as it's acknowledged, the defence can then be worked on (it's not 28 days from the date you do the AOS).

This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 - 21:05

[Bungle The Bear]

Equality Act 2010 - indirect discrimination.

Google it and find the EHRC Equality Act Code of Practice for Service Providers and click on the document, then Control & F to search it for the word 'tours'. That gives an example of indirect discrimination by allowing an arbitrary time limit that doesn;t make any reasonable adjustment for the disabled population at large.

Also search the EHRC CoP for the word 'indirect' to understand what that form of discrimination is, and why the PPC cannot be heard to say ''we didn't know about this individual's mobility problems - her fault, why didn't she tell us...waaah!'

Thanks again for taking the time SRM! Much appreciated. Will look into this now.

2 quick Q's if you don't mind answering them...?
1. Can i still make the SAR request to VCS directly even now as the case is going to CC?
2. RE your suggestion of going down the disability discrimination route, would you say there's grounds for a counter-claim against VCS?


I've done the AOS online now, going to start compiling defence details over next couple of days.

[Half_way]

if you are planning on going down the Disability discrimination/Equalities act route, you MUST inform VCS and the car park owner/entity that took on VCS as soon as possible, and if you have any evidence ( such as a Blue badge/doctors note, or any other supporting evidence) this should also help.

Also if the vehicle was not on site for the time specified you may have some evidence to prove this if you have a smartphone with google maps/apple maps.
Even with location settings off, your phone may have recorded its position using mobile phone mast trianguation

[ostell]

Just a quick check, as you've deleted the dates, was the NTK received within 14 days?

Have you checked the signage in the car park? It's not unknown for VCS to raise a claim when it was an Excel signed car park.

[SchoolRunMum]

1. Can i still make the SAR request to VCS directly even now as the case is going to CC?

Yes, as I said, just do it NOW. Loads of people here are defending claims and also sending a SAR to force info from the scammers.

2. RE your suggestion of going down the disability discrimination route, would you say there's grounds for a counter-claim against VCS?

The Defendant's grounds would be higher if they'd not ignored it and had told VCS about the disability at the time, because they could then, IMHO far more compellingly, argue that VCS were harassing a known disabled person and had continued to discriminate with knowledge that the demand was unjustified under the circumstances (indirect would then have become direct discrimination).

In this case if VCS have not been told and were ignored...technically yes, the D could add a counter claim but I am really not sure what result you'd get with the lottery of small claims. A Judge might agree that a disabled person can sue for indirect discrimination (they can) but then might offset that with ''why didn't you complain?'' and feel there is no award to be made for compensation. A gamble maybe.

[Bungle The Bear]

Just a quick check, as you've deleted the dates, was the NTK received within 14 days?

Have you checked the signage in the car park? It's not unknown for VCS to raise a claim when it was an Excel signed car park.

I haven't been to the car park site, no but i can do to check!

(I literally became aware of this issue on Saturday so my first port of call was Pepipoo to ask for advice)

Your second point is an interesting one...
The issue date of the original PCN states "Issue Date (posted): 10/01/18"
Then further down the page it states "Contravention Date: 23/12/17"

by my bad maths, that's 18 days, is it not...?

Is this an easier way to get this thrown out?



Appreciating all the comments and help so far guys, thanks to everyone!

1. Can i still make the SAR request to VCS directly even now as the case is going to CC?

Yes, as I said, just do it NOW. Loads of people here are defending claims and also sending a SAR to force info from the scammers.

2. RE your suggestion of going down the disability discrimination route, would you say there's grounds for a counter-claim against VCS?

The Defendant's grounds would be higher if they'd not ignored it and had told VCS about the disability at the time, because they could then, IMHO far more compellingly, argue that VCS were harassing a known disabled person and had continued to discriminate with knowledge that the demand was unjustified under the circumstances (indirect would then have become direct discrimination).

In this case if VCS have not been told and were ignored...technically yes, the D could add a counter claim but I am really not sure what result you'd get with the lottery of small claims. A Judge might agree that a disabled person can sue for indirect discrimination (they can) but then might offset that with ''why didn't you complain?'' and feel there is no award to be made for compensation. A gamble maybe.

Thanks SRM - looking into SAR now. (Guessing still do this if Ostell's point about 14 days is valid, more points to push back on them the better, right?)

Totally understand RE the counter and fact they ignored it and didn't reply. I just had a wicked glint in my eye about costing THEM money Muwahahaha!!!

if you are planning on going down the Disability discrimination/Equalities act route, you MUST inform VCS and the car park owner/entity that took on VCS as soon as possible, and if you have any evidence ( such as a Blue badge/doctors note, or any other supporting evidence) this should also help.

Also if the vehicle was not on site for the time specified you may have some evidence to prove this if you have a smartphone with google maps/apple maps.
Even with location settings off, your phone may have recorded its position using mobile phone mast trianguation

Hi Halfway.
There would be a blue badge and doctors letter available and to hand, yes. The registered keeper is prevented from driving on medical grounds.(It's also physically impossible for them to drive even if they wanted to due to limited mobility)

Sorry for a potentially stupid question, but...(!) what's the relevance to informing VCS ASAP if we went down discrimination route? And inform how, by submitting defence quicker, or actually contact them to say "we're going after you for discrimination"?

Smart phone is a no-go. The RK has the most basic GSM phone - using that is often a challenge lol.

This post has been edited by Bungle The Bear: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 08:59

[ostell]

To hold the keeper liable if they do not know the identity of the driver then they have to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper.

As there was no windscreen ticket then 9 (4) applies. So to entitle them to claim keeper liability they have to deliver the Notice to Keeper within 14 days. They have not done, end of, no keeper liability.

This should be the first item in your defence.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 09:07

[Bungle The Bear]

To hold the keeper liable if they do not know the identity of the driver then they have to comply with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability to the keeper.

As there was no windscreen ticket then 9 (4) applies. So to entitle them to claim keeper liability they have to deliver the Notice to Keeper within 14 days. They have not done, end of, no keeper liability.

This should be the first item in your defence.

Thanks Ostell! Have made a note of this for when i compile the defence reply, very much appreciated.

[ostell]

I was just about to add: Unless this is a hire car and then section 14 is rlelevant.

[Bungle The Bear]

I was just about to add: Unless this is a hire car and then section 14 is rlelevant.

It isn't, but it is on the motability scheme...
Make a difference?

Their Website states:
"Although we own the vehicles leased through the Motability Scheme, we are not the 'registered keeper'. The registered keeper is the person whose name is registered with the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency in Section 5 of the vehicle's log book or V5C. In the case of Motability Scheme cars, this is the customer."



This post has been edited by Bungle The Bear: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 09:16

[Bungle The Bear]

Does this read OK for SAR request please guys...?

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing to you in your capacity as data protection officer for your company – Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS). I have reason to believe you hold personal data on myself, as a vehicle I am the registered keeper for, visits car parking sites managed by your company.
It should be noted that contrary to article 13 of GDPR legislation no privacy information was provided to myself, the data subject, at the time of collection. I am therefore compelled into making this request for access to personal data pursuant to Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation.

The vehicle in question is a LOVELY CAR with VRM: ABC123X.

This vehicle is subject to a County Court claim (Claim# XYZ123ABC) relating to a PCN dated DATE, which alleges that the vehicle in question was parked for MANY minutes in the CAR PARK IN QUESTION.

I therefore request that you supply me with a log of each specific instance that my vehicle passed by one of your ANPR cameras on the date of alleged offence (DATE OF EXTORTION ATTEMPT) and an un-altered log of each time the vehicle was captured by one of your cameras. Images alone in this instance will not suffice – I require an un-altered copy of a system log showing each time the vehicle in question passed by one of your ANPR cameras.

I would like you to be aware at the outset, that I anticipate a reply to my request within one month as required under Article 12, failing which I will be forwarding my inquiry with a letter of complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).

I wish you to also please advise as to the following:

1. Please confirm to me whether or not my personal data is being processed. If it is, please provide me with the categories of personal data you have about me in your files and databases.
1. In particular, please tell me what you know about me in your information systems, whether or not contained in databases, and including e-mail, documents on your networks, or voice or other media that you may store.
2. Additionally, please advise me in which countries my personal data is stored, or accessible from. In case you make use of cloud services to store or process my data, please include the countries in which the servers are located where my data are or were (in the past 12 months) stored.
3. Please provide me with a copy of, or access to, my personal data that you have or are processing.
2. Please provide me with a detailed accounting of the specific uses and lawful basis that you have made, are making or will be making of my personal data.
3. Please provide a list of all third parties with whom you have (or may have) shared my personal data.
1. If you cannot identify with certainty the specific third parties to whom you have disclosed my personal data, please provide a list of third parties to whom you may have disclosed my personal data.
2. Please also identify which jurisdictions that you have identified in 1-1 above that these third parties with whom you have or may have shared my personal data, from which these third parties have stored or can access my personal data. Please also provide insight in the legal grounds for transferring my personal data to these jurisdictions. Where you have done so, or are doing so, on the basis of appropriate safeguards, please provide a copy.
3. Additionally, I would like to know what safeguards have been put in place in relation to these third parties that you have identified in relation to the transfer of my personal data.
4. Please advise how long you store my personal data, and if retention is based upon the category of personal data, please identify how long each category is retained.
5. If you are additionally collecting personal data about me from any source other than me, please provide me with all information about their source, as referred to in Article 14 of the GDPR.
6. If you are making automated decisions about me, including profiling, whether or not on the basis of Article 22 of the GDPR, please provide me with information concerning the basis for the logic in making such automated decisions, and the significance and consequences of such processing.


Yours Sincerely,
THE REGISTERED KEEPER/DEFENDANT IN CC CASE

I copied/edited/pasted from the thread on MSE forum so hopefully shouldn't be a million miles away, can anyone have a quick glance and say yay/nay or advise of changes please?

[nosferatu1001]

Motability makes no difference, unless they hold the V5c and you dont?

Just get it out
Cannot hang around - you need this going in today.

[Bungle The Bear]

Motability makes no difference, unless they hold the V5c and you dont?

Just get it out
Cannot hang around - you need this going in today.

No the RK holds the v5.

SAR letter looking OK then?

[ostell]

I don't think you can ask questions in the SAR, you can only ask for your data that is in their records.

[nosferatu1001]

Yep, thats the point of a SAR
yOU want a copy of all your data
Not questions

[Bungle The Bear]

Yep, thats the point of a SAR
yOU want a copy of all your data
Not questions

Got it.
Was going off the MSE template.
It's in post now. (NOT recorded as i've read on here)


What is the likelihood i will get a reply by time i need to submit a defence? (31st Oct)
I'm guessing zero - but does that matter? Can i say that i've requested the data anyway in my defence?
Or will the fact that i've requested it postpone the date further?

This post has been edited by Bungle The Bear: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 16:39

[ostell]

You probably will not get a reply by the time of the defence by you can state that you requested the information but it has not yet been supplied.