Tweet
Hi All,
I'm due in court soon re: a PCN that VCS are trying to extort money out of me for parking on land that I own (leasehold) back in 2016.
I know you folks can't comment on the merits of my defence and CC without seeing all the relevant documents but was wondering if I could get some positive criticism of my witness statement...
In the County Court at Liverpool
Claim No: *******
Between
Vehicle Control Serviced Ltd
V
Joshua *******
Witness statement of Joshua ******
I am Joshua ****** of *********
Exhibit List
In reference to the above matter I wish to provide the following evidence via exhibit.
In this statement I reference 4 exhibits. JL01 Land Registry Title, exhibit JL02 Leasehold Agreement and Transfer and JL03 – BW Legal Letter dated 15-05-1, exhibit JL04 – BW legal letter dated 04/01/17, exhibit JL05 – email responses to BW legal and VCS, JL06 – Letter Before Claim from VCS dated 07/11/19.
I will also make reference to the statement of Mr Ambreen Ashad of Vehicle Control Services Ltd (henceforth referred to as VCS), which has been served on me prior to this hearing.
In March 2014 I completed purchase of my home address, ******, 75% Shared Ownership Leasehold basis. I evidence my title and proprietorship of the property with exhibit JL01 Land Registry Title. Parking space M4 I will refer to as “my parking space”.
My property includes the parking space titled M4 as evidenced in my Leasehold Agreement, page 23 of exhibit JL02 – Leasehold Agreement and Transfer. I will refer to this exhibit as “My Lease”.
In the covenants of my Lease, there is no mention of a requirement to abide by a permit system to utilise my parking space. There is also no obligation to agree to 3rd party contracts to utilise my property.
In spite of this I displayed a permit in my car for ease of identification to the Claimants operator, that I was entitled to park in my parking space. The permit would contain the vehicle registration and the address entitled to the parking space.
On 22/03/2016 I discovered a Parking Charge Notice applied to the front windscreen of my vehicle. The charge notice was essentially a charge for parking in my parking space and I immediately contacted the claimant via email to inform them of the circumstances that I own the land I had parked and disputing any charge. I advised them to contact their client to confirm this and I also explained that permits had been sent out late and I had been away on holiday and not received the new permits to display.
I received contact from a Miss E Kontou on the 19th of April acknowledging my email sent on the 22nd of March however apparently ignoring it’s content other than an acknowledgement that I now had an “valid permit” and instructing me to send a copy to them for them to reconsider their matter. For the avoidance of any doubt this letter confirmed that this did not “represent a rejection of my appeal”. This is the last mention of my “appeal” that is mentioned in any correspondence from VCS. The letter stated that if I am “UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCE, WE WILL STILL ACCEPT THE REDUCED PAYMENT OF £60.00 BY THE ABOVE DATE”.
I found this demand for money menacing, thinking that I had provided enough information for them to confirm with their client that I was the land owner.
On 05/05/16 I received a further demand for payment from VCS, with no reference to my previous contact, this time demanding £100.00.
On the 15/06/16 I received a further 2 letters demanding money. One from VCS stating the matter had been referred to their legal service provider, BW Legal. The second letter was from BW Legal - “Specialists in Legal Recoveries”, acting on behalf of VCS who had instructed them in relation to the “balance due” for the PCN. It relayed that I had “failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN…” This letter stated that the “Balance Due includes the £100.00” plus legal costs of “£54.00”.
It detailed how the quickest way to pay is online, and warns about the future impact of County Court Proceedings. I exhibit this letter as JL03 – BW Legal letter dated 15/05/16.
This intimidating letter caused me to reply via email on the 20/06/16. I explained to them I had responded to VCS on the 22/03/16. I explain my ownership of my parking space and how I do not acknowledge the debt. I explain that I feel harassed by the contact and advise them to contact the Client of VCS to confirm my ownership of the property in question. I ask them to inform me if they wish to pursue the matter so I could consider seeking legal advice.
On the 12/07/16 I received a letter from BW Legal informing me that they had received my correspondence and was placing the file on hold whilst they await VCS’ further instructions.
On the 29/11/16 I received a further letter from BW Legal. It contained the balance due and requested contact on their offices phone number to discuss the matter futher. Of concern to me it contained pictures of my vehicle from various angles, and a picture of the permit that was displayed by my vehicle, and details of correspondence, which is similar in form to exhibit AA2. This letter was intimidating and I felt harassed. I felt it entirely inappropriate that a legal company instruct someone they were demanding money from to contact them by telephone to “discuss this matter further”.
I responded to this letter by emailing BW Legal. I stated that I requested no further contact from them unless it was related to court matters. I further explained that any information they require can be obtained from their Client, VCS and their client’s client, Redwing Living/Regenda.
I explained that the matter had already cost me a lot of time, harassment and distress to me and my then partner.
I then received a further letter from VCS which was a copy of the one sent 15/06/16, but dated 12/12/16. It again explained that due to me having “failed to make arrangements to pay” the matter would be passed to BW Legal. On the same date I also received another letter from BW Legal stating the same as what they’d said on 15/05/16. This letter however stated the balance owed was £100 plus £60 initial legal costs. It however showed the outstanding balance as still £154.00.
Again these demands for payment, incorrect and confusing as they were were causing me distress time and harassment. I replied via email on the 15/12/16. I explained that despite my previous correspondence I have received further contact from them. I reiterated the harassment and distress it was causing, and explained how it could easily be cleared up with a quick discussion with the client and their client’s client. I reiterated that further contact was unwanted and causing me distress.
BW Legal on behalf of VCS replied to me email on 04/01/17 again with a “Balance Due” of £154.00.
It outlined the definition of harassment as per the Harassment Act 1997 explaining that a course of conduct is not harassment if the person pursues it shows that the course of conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
It also draws my attention that I was previously allowed 28 days from the date I received the PCN to dispute and appeal the PCN. I exhibit this letter from BW Legal as Exhibit JL04 – BW Legal letter dated 04-01-17.
Again, finding this letter distressing and harassing and doubting the reasonableness of BW Legals course of conduct, being that they could have spoken to their client about the information I had previously passed that should have easily resolved the situation, I replied via email on the 06/01/17.
I explained to BW Legal that I had emailed VCS disputing the PCN and explaining the reasons why one day following the issue of the PCN. I also explain that reasonableness is for a Court to decide and explain due to the information being easily resolved via information at their clients disposal their conduct was not reasonable. I also explained that I would not be responding any further to their demands for money. I exhibit a copy of this email and the preceding emails sent re: this matter as JL05 – Email responses to BW Legal and VCS.
On the 16/02/17 I again received a letter from BW Legal making demands for money, again with the pictures of my vehicle on my parking space. There was no further contact from BW Legal again.
I received no correspondence reference the matter until 07/11/19 when I received a Letter Before Claim. This was not from the legal representatives of VCS, BW Legal but was received directly from VCS themselves from a JAKE BURGESS, purporting to be from VCS’ litigation department.
The letter explains that this matter had now been passed to VCS’ legal department in order to “recover the sum of £160 in respect of the PCN”… This sum was inclusive of a debt collection charge of £60. It explains that should the balance not be paid and they a “forced” to issue court proceedings to recover the debt they will seek to claim court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. It breaks the costs down as £160.00 for the principle debt, £45.48 for the estimated interest. £25.00 for the estimated court fees. It provides the estimated total to be £230.48. This letter makes no mention of my dispute of the debt, no explanation why BW Legal were no longer acting on behalf of VCS, and no mention of any previous correspondence. I exhibit this letter before claim as JL06 – Letter Before Claim from VCS dated 07-11-19.
I then received the Claim Form from the County Business Centre and knew the matter had proceeded to the small claims court. I received a further letter from VCS stating they were willing to accept a reduce settlement charge of £125.00.
To obtain information to defend my case I submitted subject access requests to VCS and BW Legal. I noted in the reply from BW Legal that my account with them had been closed. There is no mention of why in any documents.
I noted that in neither SAR there were no communications with VCS’ at the time client Regenda/Redwing Living by either VCS or BW Legal.
I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant cannot legally charge me for use of my own property, as evidenced by my title rights in JL01.
I further submit the in any case the charge is an unenforceable penalty as per The Parking Eye vs Bevis (2015) case, based upon the lack of commercial justification being that the land in this case is not available to commercial tenants, nor to attract customers.
I further submit that there can be no legitimate interest in penalising residents for using parking spaces which they own, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly, and as far as the landowner is concerned, and as Mr ARSHAD alludes to in point in point 8 of this statement, to address the difficulties within the development. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith, and out of all proportion to any legitimate interest” to fine or charge a resident for using the parking space that they own and have rightful title to after purchase.
Mr ARSHAD details in his statement the workings of the permit scheme. He does not outline when permits were sent out or how this was managed between their client and the claimant. My Leasehold agreement, exhibit JL02, makes no mention of any requirement to display a permit, but does entitle me to park one vehicle in my parking space.
I am obliged by my leasehold agreement to allow my landlords agents to enter my land but it does not contract me to abide by contracts issued by their agents. I submit that there is no lawful right to force me into a contract for parking on my own land.
In support of my counter claim I continue to submit that VCS’ and BW Legal’s conduct was unreasonable and amounts to harassment. To try to apply a £100 charge for using ones’ own land is unconscionable and could have easily been rectified with either one contacting their client. The amount is extravagant and there is no comparison.
I further submit that the claimants own processes have not been followed, as per Mr ARSHAD’s statement point 26 to 30.
I “appealed” the PCN by the claimants admission on 22/03/19. The claimant acknowledge my appeal as evidenced in the exhibit AA2. The appeal was valid.
I received no reply rejecting this appeal, no “Representation of Rejection”, and no opportunity to escalate the appeal further to the Independent Appeals Service, their second tier stage as per Mr ARSHAD’s statement point 27.
I also wish to respectfully inform the Court that the Claimants are no longer engaged in conducting their business at the location and have not for a period of years. This was following a number of complaints made by residents. I believe this resulted in Regenda not renewing their contract.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed
Date 18/05/2020
Thanks in advance for any advice...
Josh
I'm due in court soon re: a PCN that VCS are trying to extort money out of me for parking on land that I own (leasehold) back in 2016.
I know you folks can't comment on the merits of my defence and CC without seeing all the relevant documents but was wondering if I could get some positive criticism of my witness statement...
In the County Court at Liverpool
Claim No: *******
Between
Vehicle Control Serviced Ltd
V
Joshua *******
Witness statement of Joshua ******
I am Joshua ****** of *********
Exhibit List
In reference to the above matter I wish to provide the following evidence via exhibit.
In this statement I reference 4 exhibits. JL01 Land Registry Title, exhibit JL02 Leasehold Agreement and Transfer and JL03 – BW Legal Letter dated 15-05-1, exhibit JL04 – BW legal letter dated 04/01/17, exhibit JL05 – email responses to BW legal and VCS, JL06 – Letter Before Claim from VCS dated 07/11/19.
I will also make reference to the statement of Mr Ambreen Ashad of Vehicle Control Services Ltd (henceforth referred to as VCS), which has been served on me prior to this hearing.
In March 2014 I completed purchase of my home address, ******, 75% Shared Ownership Leasehold basis. I evidence my title and proprietorship of the property with exhibit JL01 Land Registry Title. Parking space M4 I will refer to as “my parking space”.
My property includes the parking space titled M4 as evidenced in my Leasehold Agreement, page 23 of exhibit JL02 – Leasehold Agreement and Transfer. I will refer to this exhibit as “My Lease”.
In the covenants of my Lease, there is no mention of a requirement to abide by a permit system to utilise my parking space. There is also no obligation to agree to 3rd party contracts to utilise my property.
In spite of this I displayed a permit in my car for ease of identification to the Claimants operator, that I was entitled to park in my parking space. The permit would contain the vehicle registration and the address entitled to the parking space.
On 22/03/2016 I discovered a Parking Charge Notice applied to the front windscreen of my vehicle. The charge notice was essentially a charge for parking in my parking space and I immediately contacted the claimant via email to inform them of the circumstances that I own the land I had parked and disputing any charge. I advised them to contact their client to confirm this and I also explained that permits had been sent out late and I had been away on holiday and not received the new permits to display.
I received contact from a Miss E Kontou on the 19th of April acknowledging my email sent on the 22nd of March however apparently ignoring it’s content other than an acknowledgement that I now had an “valid permit” and instructing me to send a copy to them for them to reconsider their matter. For the avoidance of any doubt this letter confirmed that this did not “represent a rejection of my appeal”. This is the last mention of my “appeal” that is mentioned in any correspondence from VCS. The letter stated that if I am “UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE AFOREMENTIONED EVIDENCE, WE WILL STILL ACCEPT THE REDUCED PAYMENT OF £60.00 BY THE ABOVE DATE”.
I found this demand for money menacing, thinking that I had provided enough information for them to confirm with their client that I was the land owner.
On 05/05/16 I received a further demand for payment from VCS, with no reference to my previous contact, this time demanding £100.00.
On the 15/06/16 I received a further 2 letters demanding money. One from VCS stating the matter had been referred to their legal service provider, BW Legal. The second letter was from BW Legal - “Specialists in Legal Recoveries”, acting on behalf of VCS who had instructed them in relation to the “balance due” for the PCN. It relayed that I had “failed to make a payment or raise an appeal within 28 days from the date of the PCN…” This letter stated that the “Balance Due includes the £100.00” plus legal costs of “£54.00”.
It detailed how the quickest way to pay is online, and warns about the future impact of County Court Proceedings. I exhibit this letter as JL03 – BW Legal letter dated 15/05/16.
This intimidating letter caused me to reply via email on the 20/06/16. I explained to them I had responded to VCS on the 22/03/16. I explain my ownership of my parking space and how I do not acknowledge the debt. I explain that I feel harassed by the contact and advise them to contact the Client of VCS to confirm my ownership of the property in question. I ask them to inform me if they wish to pursue the matter so I could consider seeking legal advice.
On the 12/07/16 I received a letter from BW Legal informing me that they had received my correspondence and was placing the file on hold whilst they await VCS’ further instructions.
On the 29/11/16 I received a further letter from BW Legal. It contained the balance due and requested contact on their offices phone number to discuss the matter futher. Of concern to me it contained pictures of my vehicle from various angles, and a picture of the permit that was displayed by my vehicle, and details of correspondence, which is similar in form to exhibit AA2. This letter was intimidating and I felt harassed. I felt it entirely inappropriate that a legal company instruct someone they were demanding money from to contact them by telephone to “discuss this matter further”.
I responded to this letter by emailing BW Legal. I stated that I requested no further contact from them unless it was related to court matters. I further explained that any information they require can be obtained from their Client, VCS and their client’s client, Redwing Living/Regenda.
I explained that the matter had already cost me a lot of time, harassment and distress to me and my then partner.
I then received a further letter from VCS which was a copy of the one sent 15/06/16, but dated 12/12/16. It again explained that due to me having “failed to make arrangements to pay” the matter would be passed to BW Legal. On the same date I also received another letter from BW Legal stating the same as what they’d said on 15/05/16. This letter however stated the balance owed was £100 plus £60 initial legal costs. It however showed the outstanding balance as still £154.00.
Again these demands for payment, incorrect and confusing as they were were causing me distress time and harassment. I replied via email on the 15/12/16. I explained that despite my previous correspondence I have received further contact from them. I reiterated the harassment and distress it was causing, and explained how it could easily be cleared up with a quick discussion with the client and their client’s client. I reiterated that further contact was unwanted and causing me distress.
BW Legal on behalf of VCS replied to me email on 04/01/17 again with a “Balance Due” of £154.00.
It outlined the definition of harassment as per the Harassment Act 1997 explaining that a course of conduct is not harassment if the person pursues it shows that the course of conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
It also draws my attention that I was previously allowed 28 days from the date I received the PCN to dispute and appeal the PCN. I exhibit this letter from BW Legal as Exhibit JL04 – BW Legal letter dated 04-01-17.
Again, finding this letter distressing and harassing and doubting the reasonableness of BW Legals course of conduct, being that they could have spoken to their client about the information I had previously passed that should have easily resolved the situation, I replied via email on the 06/01/17.
I explained to BW Legal that I had emailed VCS disputing the PCN and explaining the reasons why one day following the issue of the PCN. I also explain that reasonableness is for a Court to decide and explain due to the information being easily resolved via information at their clients disposal their conduct was not reasonable. I also explained that I would not be responding any further to their demands for money. I exhibit a copy of this email and the preceding emails sent re: this matter as JL05 – Email responses to BW Legal and VCS.
On the 16/02/17 I again received a letter from BW Legal making demands for money, again with the pictures of my vehicle on my parking space. There was no further contact from BW Legal again.
I received no correspondence reference the matter until 07/11/19 when I received a Letter Before Claim. This was not from the legal representatives of VCS, BW Legal but was received directly from VCS themselves from a JAKE BURGESS, purporting to be from VCS’ litigation department.
The letter explains that this matter had now been passed to VCS’ legal department in order to “recover the sum of £160 in respect of the PCN”… This sum was inclusive of a debt collection charge of £60. It explains that should the balance not be paid and they a “forced” to issue court proceedings to recover the debt they will seek to claim court costs and further interest in additional to the outstanding balance. It breaks the costs down as £160.00 for the principle debt, £45.48 for the estimated interest. £25.00 for the estimated court fees. It provides the estimated total to be £230.48. This letter makes no mention of my dispute of the debt, no explanation why BW Legal were no longer acting on behalf of VCS, and no mention of any previous correspondence. I exhibit this letter before claim as JL06 – Letter Before Claim from VCS dated 07-11-19.
I then received the Claim Form from the County Business Centre and knew the matter had proceeded to the small claims court. I received a further letter from VCS stating they were willing to accept a reduce settlement charge of £125.00.
To obtain information to defend my case I submitted subject access requests to VCS and BW Legal. I noted in the reply from BW Legal that my account with them had been closed. There is no mention of why in any documents.
I noted that in neither SAR there were no communications with VCS’ at the time client Regenda/Redwing Living by either VCS or BW Legal.
I respectfully submit to the court that the Claimant cannot legally charge me for use of my own property, as evidenced by my title rights in JL01.
I further submit the in any case the charge is an unenforceable penalty as per The Parking Eye vs Bevis (2015) case, based upon the lack of commercial justification being that the land in this case is not available to commercial tenants, nor to attract customers.
I further submit that there can be no legitimate interest in penalising residents for using parking spaces which they own, under the excuse of a scheme where ostensibly, and as far as the landowner is concerned, and as Mr ARSHAD alludes to in point in point 8 of this statement, to address the difficulties within the development. It is unconscionable, contrary to the requirement of good faith, and out of all proportion to any legitimate interest” to fine or charge a resident for using the parking space that they own and have rightful title to after purchase.
Mr ARSHAD details in his statement the workings of the permit scheme. He does not outline when permits were sent out or how this was managed between their client and the claimant. My Leasehold agreement, exhibit JL02, makes no mention of any requirement to display a permit, but does entitle me to park one vehicle in my parking space.
I am obliged by my leasehold agreement to allow my landlords agents to enter my land but it does not contract me to abide by contracts issued by their agents. I submit that there is no lawful right to force me into a contract for parking on my own land.
In support of my counter claim I continue to submit that VCS’ and BW Legal’s conduct was unreasonable and amounts to harassment. To try to apply a £100 charge for using ones’ own land is unconscionable and could have easily been rectified with either one contacting their client. The amount is extravagant and there is no comparison.
I further submit that the claimants own processes have not been followed, as per Mr ARSHAD’s statement point 26 to 30.
I “appealed” the PCN by the claimants admission on 22/03/19. The claimant acknowledge my appeal as evidenced in the exhibit AA2. The appeal was valid.
I received no reply rejecting this appeal, no “Representation of Rejection”, and no opportunity to escalate the appeal further to the Independent Appeals Service, their second tier stage as per Mr ARSHAD’s statement point 27.
I also wish to respectfully inform the Court that the Claimants are no longer engaged in conducting their business at the location and have not for a period of years. This was following a number of complaints made by residents. I believe this resulted in Regenda not renewing their contract.
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
Signed
Date 18/05/2020
Thanks in advance for any advice...
Josh
