VCS ANPR 2015 PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield S11 8PN ***Claim Discontinued***

[anniebattlemum]

Actually I never hit quote and I keep trying to avoid it but it just keeps coming up automatically.

[dx100uk]

ok thanks

 

worked ok above

 

 

[anniebattlemum]

I have read various brief defences and think it's time to prepare something and run it by you.

 

Am I right in thinking that:

a) It should not be submitted in advance as then the claimant will see it and have the benefit of adjusting his claim

 

b) It should be sent by email direct to the County Court Business Centre as close as possible to the final day - is that because of security, reliability of delivery or some other reason?

 

At what point does the Witness Statement come into play?

I have read "at the time of disclosure" - is that in court?

 

After the brief defence you recommend, suggesting there is no contract and therefore no breach has occurred,

does anything further happen before the actual appearance in court?

 

I have taken further steps to get land owner information from the Land Registry office,

but I'm not sure what I can do with that information,

 

unless I write to them and ask them to confirm they have given VCS the right to make charges.

 

Would that be a waste of time?

 

Thanks once again for all your helpful guidance.

[dx100uk]

37 minutes ago, anniebattlemum said:

I have read various brief defences and think it's time to prepare something and run it by you.

 

Am I right in thinking that:

a) It should not be submitted in advance as then the claimant will see it and have the benefit of adjusting his claim- they cant adjust their claim 

 

b) It should be sent by email direct to the County Court Business Centre as close as possible to the final day - is that because of security, reliability of delivery or some other reason? no you file it via the MCOL website as you did AOS. that's what its there for!

 

At what point does the Witness Statement come into play?

I have read "at the time of disclosure" - is that in court? no. at the disclosers stage after both parties file their direction questionnaire's [N180] and then to court will allocate the claim a time/date [N157] - witness statement inc Exhibits must be exchanged by 14 days prior to the allocated hearing date.

 

After the brief defence you recommend, suggesting there is no contract and therefore no breach has occurred,

does anything further happen before the actual appearance in court? as above.

 

I have taken further steps to get land owner information from the Land Registry office,

but I'm not sure what I can do with that information,

unless I write to them and ask them to confirm they have given VCS the right to make charges.

Would that be a waste of time? - 

 

Thanks once again for all your helpful guidance.

 

what further steps?

[anniebattlemum]

In response to your question, I have a copy of the title deeds showing ownership and also the leases.

No idea what to do with that info though!

 

I should be most grateful if you would review the attached brief draft defence on page 1.

The page 2 thoughts are a work in progress.

 

The POFA point is weak in my opinion, but having read a lot of analysis of the requirements, I haven't managed to come up with anything beefy.

 

I should be grateful for any ideas on that, as it seems like a failure to follow procedure would be a strong defence.

 

Also it asks for the driver's details on the PCN and then the claim states the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver, but I don't really understand whether there's a point of defence there. 

 

DRAFT DEFENCE

 

1)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS had a contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) in August 2015, and therefore failed to show either a legitimate interest in controlling parking at the Berkeley Precinct, or the authorisation to make charges on their own behalf, for any overstay in the carpark, including for first-time offenders (relevant to Tesco lease). (no response to CPR 31.14 request delivered and signed for at 10.32a.m. on 9th July)

 

2)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS obtained a planning permit from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 (also requested in my CPR 31.14 letter) and that there were prominent signs in existence at that time, showing clearly the terms and conditions for parking and the charge payable for any breach. Therefore, the three elements of offer, acceptance and consideration required for a contract were not met, and no contract existed.

 

3)      The claimant failed to issue the PCN in the timescale required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability and, allowing for the 2 day delivery time afforded to Royal Mail, it arrived a day later than the 14 day deadline. The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.

 

 

 

[brassnecked]

Must satisfy POFA if they want to ground Keeper Liability, so no Keeper liability, their RoboClaims always try to sue both as if they can jointly and severally, but the Courts should be looking at the was Driver or Keeper and chuck the claim out for being vague, but they don't  They might if POFA fails and they know they are onto a loser, might have a last gasp and try to rely on Elliott v Loake a criminal case so not applicable to a Civil claim, and CPS v AJH Films, again not applicable as is about employer/employee, they will do this to try to get someone to cough up before a case they know they are going to lose to salvage what they have already paid ou to go to court.  I would delete the  line

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline as is my right to name the driver (s) at this time" 

That is an oblique reference to the duty to name driver in a Criminal case, and is the Elloitt v Loake scenario.

 

Others will have better ideas, but lloking decent.

[anniebattlemum]

Thanks for that.

I will delete that reference.

 

It looks as though I could still do with a more robust POFA defence in terms of keeper liability, so I will revisit Section 4 asap.

 

Any further ideas on that would be greatly appreciated.

 

Sorry the quote line came up again!!

 

[ericsbrother]

on point 3 I would be careful mentioning yourself at all, just stick to the POFA bit about VCS not having created a keeper liability unless you are going to deny being the driver at the time.

 

where you say they have failed to respond to a CPR 31.14 you can state that you therefore believe they do not have the necessary contract/permission etc but no need to repeat the fact they didnt respond or waht time they get it as they are not actually obliged to respond ( though it can damage their claimby not doing so), put that in once and when you get to the next point just say

 

ALSO

same goes for the 12+2 days, no need to mention Royal mail as no-one is forced to use the post, they copuld employ a process server so you are adding unnecessary text

 

Just makes it easier to read and get the points across

[anniebattlemum]

Many thanks for those helpful comments.

 

I have done a revised draft - not sure that Point 2 re signage is expressed very well.

 

Still looking for more ammo on POFA Section 4.

 

Does this look a bit tidier? 

 

DRAFT DEFENCE

1)      The claimant has failed to prove that VCS had a contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) in August 2015, and therefore failed to show either a legitimate interest in controlling parking at the Berkeley Precinct, or the authorisation to make charges on their own behalf, for any overstay in the carpark. Since no response was received to my CPR 31.14 request, I believe the parking company did not therefore have the necessary contract or permission to impose charges on drivers.

 

2)       I also requested evidence that the parking company had obtained planning permission from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, to provide prominent signs to show clearly the terms and conditions for parking and the charge payable for any breach. In the absence of a response, I believe these conditions were not in place at the time, and therefore the three elements of offer, acceptance and consideration were not met and therefore no contract exists with the driver.

 

3)      The claimant failed to issue the PCN in the timescale required under the Protection       of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore the parking company has not met keeper liability requirements. The claimant states that the Defendant was either the registered keeper and/or the driver, but has neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) was/were. Since keeper liability does not apply, I submit that I am not liable to any charge.

 

I therefore respectfully request that the court withdraw this claim.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

you are only making bullet point to show thatyou have a reaosn for not paying/defending the claim.

All of the detail is for later

so to that end drop any personal reference s like I did this or that and just stae the facts liek "at the time they had no planning permission for their signage and it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact

 

 for point 3 you dont ask the court to do anything, they cant at this stage. Now here would be a good place to deny being the driver at the time unless you have already identified yourself as such

[anniebattlemum]

'It looks as though all I need to say at this time is:

 

1) The claimant had no contract with the the landowner to authorise charges for overstaying in the car park.

 

2) At the time, VCS had no planning permission to erect signage and it was therefore not possible for the parking company to enter into a contract regarding terms and conditions for parking. 

 

3) I was not the driver at the time and, since VCS has not met the conditions for keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act, I submit I am not liable for any charge.

 

If you think this is OK,

we might as well get it off and focus on preparing the evidence for the N 180.

 

However, I don't know whether the claimant had a contract or not with the landowner, so I'm not sure I should assert that they haven't?

 

Also I see that for membership of IPS, you have to satisfy the first 2 points above

- contract with landowner & planning permission, so they surely must have had those documents?

 

They couldn't just rock up and take over someone's space and turn it into a car park, so is point 1 above OK?

 

I was unable to find any planning application so I'm OK with Number 2.

 

Many thanks again.

 

Sorry, I meant the IPC terms for membership.

[dx100uk]

you don't exchange anything at n180 time

and even so ...you don't agree to mediation either.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

You are better to say that you do not believe they have planning permission and that covers you if it is revealed that they do have PP.

[anniebattlemum]

Many thanks for all your helpful comments.

 

This is the revised initial defence which I propose to submit tonight or tomorrow.

I have cut out all the detail for the next stage and would be grateful if you would just confirm this looks OK for now.

 

REVISED DRAFT DEFENCE

 

1)      I believe that, in August 2015, the claimant did not have the necessary contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) authorising them to charge on their own behalf, for any overstay in the Berkeley Precinct carpark.

 

2)       I also believe that, at the time, the parking company did not have planning permission from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, for their signage at the Berkeley Precinct, and it was therefore not possible for VCS to enter into a contract regarding terms and conditions for parking.

 

3)      I was not the driver on the date in question and the claimant failed to meet the conditions required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability. The claimant states that the Defendant was either the registered keeper and/or the driver, but has neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) was/were. Since keeper liability does not apply, I submit that I am not therefore liable to any charge.

 

 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

never use word

it has all your pers details under file properties

just copy the text to a post here

as I've done with you word file above

then we can view/copy/edit it.

 

dx

 

[anniebattlemum]

 Oh dear I didn't know that about Word - thanks for the tip.

 

I would be grateful for any other comments re the text.

 

Thanks for getting me to this point.

I now have a huge amount of info to plough thru to prepare for the next stage.

 

Is there any guidance as to what happens next and how long that takes, or will that be made clear once the basic defence has been submitted?

 

I haven't been able to find a clear explanation of the procedure anywhere. 

 

[dx100uk]

defence due by Friday 4pm.

 

 

[anniebattlemum]

Thank you so much for the reminder - you're really on the ball!

 

I was just reading the detail of a similar case v. VCS in 2018 which the defendant sadly lost.

One thing that shouted at me was that the judge would not allow the defendant to raise any points in court that were not included in his original brief defence.

 

This possibility has concerned me and I wonder now whether I should at least include references to those additional points in this brief defence, or just pray we get a more amenable judge!

[dx100uk]

our std 2 or 3 lines covers all you ever need too or intimates to it.

let Eric check yours above over before you file it.

[anniebattlemum]

OK if you would lease Eric. I have lots of other points re grace period, cameras and data, fairness, harassment etc. but if you think thery're adequately related to the points in the brief version, I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

[brassnecked]

less is moe at this stage, gives the PPC no wriggle room after they stick in a RoboClaim WS.

[FTMDave]

Can your daughter remember by any chance which company was running the car park in 2015?

 

I know it's unlikely after four years but I see there are two other threads concerning the Berkeley Centre where the car park signs show Excel as running the car park yet it is VCS who threaten court action.  One thread mentions the signs being changed in 2018/19 but it does beg the question if VCS were making the same mistake in 2015. 

[anniebattlemum]

Unfortunately she has no idea.

 

However, if you look at BW Legal's letter dated 5 April 2016, the second para states

"Excel now requires full payment of the Balance...…………."

 

I was going to use this as an example of confusing, worrying and harassing the defendant, as my daughter would have had no clue who was demanding money from her!

 

It is therefore quite possible that the signage was out of order in 2015 and probably not visible and most likely illegal, but we don't have any physical evidence of photos from that time.

[FTMDave]

I've done some digging and found out that the signage was changed in November 2018 from two hours' free parking to one hour (I'm sure we can all guess why).

 

I've also found a photo of the old signage (attached) but frustratingly the quality is rubbish and the part with the company name is partially chopped off.

 

VCS have an excellent track record of getting spanked in court and may well discontinue when they see your defence.  However, if it does get to WS stage, it'll be worth looking at whatever proof of signage they send and keep in mind this Excel/VCS mix up that they often get so wrong.

 

The photos I found were published in an article in May 2016 in the Sheffield Star, so were probably the same in 2015.

 

Unfortunately this second one does show "Vehicle Control Services" at the bottom so my little idea has turned out to be a non-starter.

 

Oh well, you have about a million other excellent points prepared to see them off!

 

While looking for the photos I came across articles in the local rag, and people have certainly been complaining about the reduction of free parking from two hours to one https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/motorist-made-to-feel-like-a-criminal-after-incurring-parking-fine-at-sheffield-shopping-centre-146877

pix.pdf

[anniebattlemum]

Ah bless you thanks.

 

So that is the signage pre- November 2018, but do we know if it was the signage for 2015? 

I too read somewhere that they changed it to 1 hour and certainly that's how it is at the moment - I did a driveby!

I needed to get a feel for the location and the conditions, traffic volume etc.

However we don't have evidence going back 4 years I'm afraid.

 

I'm also confused because the Land Registry has the name in the title deed as the West London Property Corporation Ltd. and a planning application dated October 2000 is in the name of The Henderson UK Property Fund, although the agent is still the same - Lambert Smith Hampton of Manchester, so there will be a lot to check if VCS does produce these documents.

 

Tescos took out their lease in December 2006 - important as they occupy the majority of the Precinct and their declared policy on car parking is on record.

 

It's a very busy store and I'd challenge anyone to get out of there within the free hour, but after that, they have to pay these robbers, as there's now a machine in place.

 

There's plenty of evidence of applications for signs for the retail outlets and an ATM for the carpark, but nothing I can find for VCS or Excel.

 

However, someone has said online that Excel were in the process of installing Number Plate recognition cameras in 2010 and I also read that Excel were barred for 3 months in 2012 from using the DVLA database.

 

It seems the Berkeley Centre was already there in some form in the 1960's.

I don't think any of that really helps our case though.