This story is interesting but does not seem to have been picked up by many news outlets. Maybe because the ICO had not publicised the outcome of its DVLA investigation? Parking fines: DVLA breached law over sharing drivers’ details | DVLA | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Agency could face compensation claims after data watchdog rules it... It looks like there are mixed views as to whether any drivers affected will be able to benefit from this.

On your point 5, this seems to give credence to the claimant using POFA for Stopping Events. POFA only relates to Parking and Stopping is not Parking. As the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022 makes clear, POFA envisaged circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. Further, from Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: parked/parking = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle) stopped = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain at rest whilst in the course of driving

They may try to address those 4 points through skeleton arguments to be sent much closer to the court date. Be aware that VCS have also been known to try and introduce new "evidence" along with these skeletons. Any judge should see through this.

OK. Fair enough. It could have helped your case if this had been noted. However, you were not to know that 6 months was not a reasonable timescale for the court date. It would seem that contacting the court at the earliest opportunity to make them aware would do no harm.

Did you not make the court aware of your unavailability on this date in the Directions Questionnaire?

Don't forget that they don't know the identity of the driver and can't rely on POFA to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper as the land is not relevant. Furthermore, POFA only applies to parking events - not stopping.

Well, in my case they claimed to have not received the WS. It was pointed out I had a signed proof of delivery. The case was then adjourned for other reasons but, strangely, VCS never requested the WS be sent again. While I would not rule out incompetence, I tend to think this is a deliberate ploy. It casts doubt on the defendant and just adds stress and inconvenience.

Following the VCS playbook. Happened in my recent case too. You have your proof of posting I assume?

Good luck! With such a strong WS, it is very possible VCS will not show up. Also remember, there can be no presumption that the keeper is the driver - they may try this one if they do appear.

Be prepared for a collection of letters from Trace. Some from the "Debt Recovery Dept" and others from their "Legal Dept". I have seen quite a few and they eventually went away and BW Legal took over. Had a similar NTK to this from NCP. The location was just as vague i.e. just the town and it was received well out of time for POFA keeper liability. However, NCP will claim they are not relying on POFA i.e. they are going to assert that the keeper was the driver. The problem with this is that in their NTK, and subsequent correspondence, they continually state they don't know who the driver is! Prepare for a long haul even though it is hard to see how they can win in court.

I assume that is your VCS case reference number at the end of the bogus VCS offer to settle letter? You might want to remove that.

To be assumed to be received by Monday, you really need to post on Friday. Free proof of posting is sufficient for the court but be careful with VCS, they have a habit of claiming they didn't receive claimant's documents. You can get a free proof of posting for VCS also but proof of delivery with a signature is the best counter to their lies. Send to both at the same time.

Correct. Judges will have access to legislation or will already be familiar with it so can check wider context if needed.

It is reasonable to just quote the relevant sections of any legislation like POFA.

Concerning 8.4, you can find useful definitions of parking and stopping in the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: The provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. parked/parking = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle) stopped = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain at rest whilst in the course of driving

Many do quote successful cases to make a key point. However, most cases and wins discussed on this forum are in the County Court. These cases do not set any kind of legal precedent and judges in other cases do not need to pay attention to them. So, the odd case can be useful for choice quotes from a judge, but better to rely on judgements from higher courts e.g. Beavis.

Concerning the planning permission point, you need explain a bit further why this is important. The usual argument is that these signs are illegal and VCS can't benefit from something illegal. I think it is also worth calling out the VCS claim that their signs detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs in their witness pack make no reference to parking. It is good to show all the inconsistencies in this cut and paste WS in order to expose it for the incoherent nonsense it is.

I see it is the usual rewording of contravention code 46 from the contract (Parking/Waiting on a Roadway where Stopping is Prohibited) to the NTK (Stopping on a Roadway where Stopping is Prohibited). As usual, none of the contracted contravention codes relate to stopping events which begs the question whether VCS have the authority to enforce Stopping events? Furthermore, the cut&paste WS continually refers to Parking even though the claimed contravention was Stopping. They also repeat the false claim that the Keeper can be assumed to be the Driver. VCS also imply that they can pick and choose whether to use POFA but the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can't apply on airport land where byelaws apply - plus POFA is only relevant for parking (something the new CoP makes clear) 5.3 Prohibition on stopping The provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle. Plenty of good grounds for a good defence.

Yes, when I'd double checked my facts, I noticed that same potential for confusion.

Well said lookinforinfo. Just one point to note, VCS already left the BPA and joined the IPC (they refer to IPC in the WS even though BPA membership is in the contract). Even the toothless BPA code was too onerous for them!

I see they are rewording the contravention code 46 from what it is in the contract. PCN : Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited Contract: Parking/waiting on a roadway where stopping is prohibited Stopping is not the same as parking/waiting. In fact none of the contravention codes in the contract concern stopping. Do they have the authority from the landowner to litigate for stopping events? One suspects they have deliberately reworded this contravention code in the PCN to make you think they do.

So, was there any mention of the contravention code “104 Stopping to pick up/drop off in a restricted zone.” in the contract you received? It doesn't appear in the contract that others have shared. Without this, on what authority can VCS issue the PCN?

Note that they have recently updated the Byelaws so may have also changed the sign. The previous sign is on Street View at the start of the railings section near the short stay car park.

There was another, much larger, sign that referred to the Byelaws and No Stopping. It did not get removed when VCS started operating in 2019. The others were removed/replaced. I don't know if this other sign was still there at the time of this incident.

Be careful, those are old signs replaced in summer 2019. Check the date of images when using Street View.