County Court - VCS - Hartlepool Marina 4 years ago, County Court claim form received for parking at Hartlepool Marina Options

[mbee123]

Received a claim form from County court businees centre for £185 for breach of contract on private land, namely parking without displaying a vlaid ticket

The offense date is over 4 years ago (May 15) so honestly details are a bit sketchy. Maybe not the best course of action but we have ignored letters from VCS as my daughter believed she had a ticket but couldn't find it

Sept 2015 - - asking for £150 to settle balance, there was obviously a letter before this which she can't find.
Oct 2015 - £180 - Wright hassel solicitors
March 2016 - BW legal requesting £154


Options are to pay up or dispute the claim.

Appreciate any advice, attending court is not something my daughter would like to do, do we have a defence or any chance of winning this as the charge is very excessive considering the alleged crime..

[Advertisement]

[Sheffield Dave]

Is the claim in the name of you or your daughter? Who is the registered keeper?

[mbee123]

My daughter for both

[ostell]

Check for the existence of byelaws

[Dave65]

Do a search in the top right box "Hartlepool Marina" there are other threads on going at this site.

[mbee123]

Thanks for the responses, so best cause of action would be to acknowledge the claim online to buy me a bit more time

Then follow that up with the below shamelessly stolen from Redivi's advice to another poster (much appreciated), as there appears to be byelaws in place on the land.

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES(Claimant)
v
******* (defendant)

Claim no:

Defence

The Defendant denies any debt to the Claimant for the following reasons

1. The Defendant confirms that he was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned on 7 October 2017.

2. The Defendant denies that he was the driver at the time of the supposed event.
The vehicle has multiple drivers including the Defendant's partner and colleagues providing that their insurance policies cover the driving of other vehicles.
The alleged location is covered by Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws
It is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the Defendant as the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Even if the location were relevant land, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of POFA in a number of respects.

3 Notwithstanding the above comment, the Claimant has already stated that it does not rely on the Keeper provisions of POFA 2012 but the incorrect presumption that the keeper is the driver

4 The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on its own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Para B 1.1

5 The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the driver
They are inadequate and in breach of its Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1
There are no entrance signs and the signs that are present are few in number with small and illegible text
The Supreme Court, ParkingEye v Beavis, has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and the parking operator must be in compliance with its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects.

I believe that the facts in this statement are true

Signature

Realistically how will this play out, even to win would my daughter need to attend court or is this likely to be settled out of court?

She's dreading a court visit and is leaning towards giving in to the chancers!

[Jlc]

Realistically how will this play out, even to win would my daughter need to attend court or is this likely to be settled out of court?

She's dreading a court visit and is leaning towards giving in to the chancers!

See this report just today...

[mbee123]

Going to go ahead and dispute the claim, what sort of things can my daughter use in a counter claim, (time of work, stationary, postage etc)?

It states there is a cost for this, any ideas how much?

[Jlc]

Don't confuse a counterclaim with costs.

[Redivi]

You don't counter-claim for costs which, in the Small Claims Court, are very limited - typically half a day off work and travel to the hearing

Courts rarely award anything else unless the company has acted unreasonably

VCS can argue that it's your daughter that has acted unreasonably by ignoring the letters and leaving them no option but to bring the claim

[mbee123]

Thanks for the clarification Redivi, Jlc

As I don't have the original Notice to Keeper I will contact VCS to ask for copies of the documents and photographs, will email suffice as proof of contact?

Regards

[nosferatu1001]

No idea what you mean by "proof of contact"
You would need to provide a copy of the V5 as proof of identity, if thats what you meant, to shwo youa re the keeper and entitled to theinfo.

[mbee123]

Do you have the original Notice to Keeper ?
If not, contact VCS and ask for copies of all the documents and photographs that they intend to rely on

From what I recall, VCS Notices from this period failed to contain the content that the Protection of Freedoms Act requires to recover payment from the keeper if it doesn't know who was driving

What this means is that, unless VCS can persuade a judge that you were driving, the claim must fail
Even the Notice did comply with POFA, the maximum that VCS can recover is the original parking charge
It can't recover any ZZPS/DCBL/Wright Hassall additions

I'm following advice given on a similar case, just wanted verification that an email would be proof enough as an attempt to contact VCS for docs and pics...

[nosferatu1001]

That is sufficient to show you tried to contact them, but that might not suffice for anything else.

SAR them, they must supply all docs within 30 days. UNtil then, you write your defence based on what you think your defence can be.

[harribops]

I Have a case concerning Hartlepool marina also which is currently going through mediation, ill let you know how it goes. Good luck

[Redivi]

I Have a case concerning Hartlepool marina also which is currently going through mediation, ill let you know how it goes. Good luck

You do realise that, with their greater experience of mediation and the support of the mediator, parking companies usually recover nearly the full amount of the claim

[mbee123]

You do realise that, with their greater experience of mediation and the support of the mediator, parking companies usually recover nearly the full amount of the claim

So should she refuse any offer of Mediation ? Would this definitely then result in a court date or is there a chance they would give up?

[mbee123]

And regarding the defence is the below sufficient? I have SAR'd them for the details of the original notice to keeper but do not expect to receive this before my defence needs submitting.

Is it worth putting anything else around the fact that we did not receive the original NIP, and the first we knew of this was 4 months later which was a demand for £150, which would back up the claim of not knowing the driver due to the elapsed time.


VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES(Claimant)

******* (defendant)

Claim no:

Defence

The Defendant denies any debt to the Claimant for the following reasons

1. The Defendant confirms that she was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned on 7 May 2015.

2. The Defendant denies that she was the driver at the time of the supposed event.
The vehicle has multiple drivers including the Defendant's partner and adult children, all of which have access to the vehicle and drive it on regular occasions.

3. The alleged location is covered by Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws
It is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the Defendant as the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Even if the location were relevant land, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of POFA in a number of respects.

4. Notwithstanding the above comment, the Claimant has already stated that it does not rely on the Keeper provisions of POFA 2012 but the incorrect presumption that the keeper is the driver

5. The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on its own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Para B 1.1

6. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the driver
They are inadequate and in breach of its Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1
There are no entrance signs and the signs that are present are few in number with small and illegible text
The Supreme Court, ParkingEye v Beavis, has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and the parking operator must be in compliance with its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects.

I believe that the facts in this statement are true

Signature

This post has been edited by mbee123: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:54

[nosferatu1001]

NtK, not NIP. No prosecution!

YEs, of course you state they have no served you with a NtK, but you also know (as youve found VCS NtKs elsewhere by now) that they dont actually make ht ekeepr liable using POFA< they just have htis shonky "we assume youre the driver" that they then use various (CRAP) previous court cases to try to justify.

By denying you are saying you were NOT the driver. Canyou say this? Or can you say, on balance of prob, you were NOT - as 3 or more drivers use it, for example?

[mbee123]

Thanks again nosferatu1001, I've reworded the confirmation/denial of driver bit

As stated I have SAR'd them for the details of the original notice to keeper but do not expect to receive this before my defence needs submitting next week, so is it worth adding anything around the fact it was 4 months later when I was made aware of the alleged offence, which would back up the claim of not knowing the driver due to the elapsed time?


Thanks VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES(Claimant)

******* (defendant)

Claim no:

Defence

The Defendant denies any debt to the Claimant for the following reasons

1. The Defendant confirms that she was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned on 7 May 2015.

2. The Defendant cannot confirm that she was the driver at the time of the supposed event, as the vehicle has multiple drivers including the Defendant's partner and adult children, all of which have access to the vehicle and drive it on regular occasions.

3. The alleged location is covered by Tees and Hartlepool Harbour Byelaws
It is not relevant land as defined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the Defendant as the vehicle's Registered Keeper. Even if the location were relevant land, the Claimant's Notice to Keeper fails to meet the requirements of POFA in a number of respects.

4. Notwithstanding the above comment, the Claimant has already stated that it does not rely on the Keeper provisions of POFA 2012 but the incorrect presumption that the keeper is the driver

5. The Claimant is not the land-owner and does not have the capacity to take legal action on its own behalf unless it has occupational rights over the land in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice Para B 1.1

6. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's signs at the location cannot form any contract with the driver
They are inadequate and in breach of its Code of Practice Part E Schedule 1
There are no entrance signs and the signs that are present are few in number with small and illegible text
The Supreme Court, ParkingEye v Beavis, has made clear that, in order to recover a penalty, signs must be clear and the parking operator must be in compliance with its Code of Practice. The Claimant fails in both respects.

I believe that the facts in this statement are true

Signature