Tweet
Hi,
I have received a county court claim for a parking charge notice dating back to 2017. So far, I have acknowledged receipt of service, and I have contacted the claimant (VCS) and the company handling the case (Elms Legal). I have received an evidence pack on request, that includes a copy of the NTK, Final reminder, a close up photograph of a sign within the car park, several photos of the car in the car park - including one showing the windscreen of the car with an affixed plastic documents envelope that has been placed there, presumably by the person taking the photos.
So far I have the following points raised with Elms Legal, and they are currently not receiving confirmation from the claimant (VCS) regarding these points:
1) the Notice to keeper and subsequent court claim make reference to the contravention as, "81) PARKED IN A RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED AREA" - it provides no further detail as to what this means or how this has been identified.
The photo of the sign makes no reference to restricted or prohibited areas of the car park, and the only terms that are stated on the sign are that it is "Parking for Topps Tiles Customers Only Whilst In Store" and "! Max Stay 2 Hours - No Return Within 1 Hour !"
Upon speaking to Vehicle Control Services Ltd, they advised me the following:
a) They do not have a singular list of terms and conditions as each car park has its own terms and conditions as indicated on the sign displayed.
b) The number (81) does not indicate they have 81 or more contravention types - it is simply a code they use
c) The meaning of this particular contravention *may* be not in a bay, or in an area designated as no parking. (They could not confirm the reason for the specific contravention)
Upon speaking to Elms Legal, they confirmed they did not have any further details regarding the contravention and would need to request that information from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
There are no marked bays, the car itself is photographed below a sign that indicates Topps Tiles Customer Parking, there are areas in front of the store with cross hatching, but it is clear the car is parked in area where there are no markings to restrict or prohibit parking, and no indication that cars are expected to park in any particular areas
2) The photograph of the car windscreen with the document pocket suggests a notice to driver - on this basis, it would violate the Notice to Keeper timeline (issued 6 days after the contravention date) as per PoFa 2012.
I spoke with Elms Legal again about this fact, and they could only suggest that the document was merely a warning, and not an actual notice to driver, however they do not have a copy of the document to confirm either way, and again have requested this from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
Despite Vehicle Control Services Ltd indicating that these are just codes they use - I did find a similar reference to the code with "The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Order 2007." which has "81 Parked in a restricted area in an off-street car park or housing estate" and further guidance from the government pertaining to this indicates: "Ensure that you check all markings and signs at the location where you wish to park your vehicle. Do not park within hatched areas or any space which is signed as prohibited."
Further to these points, I have also been able to determine the following point:
1) There is no sign at the entrance of the car park - despite this being mentioned in the claim as "The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations."
The photograph of the close-up sign clearly shows a pavement and road behind it, with a low level barrier/ going across. This highlights that the sign is facing inward (not visible to the public outside the car park).
A google street view image of the car park further highlights there are no signs prominent from outside the car park (some signs about 8ft up on the wall sideways to the street, but would not be possible to read from the pavement, letalone from a vehicle), and no signs whatsoever at the entrance.
The photographed sign in question appears to be approximately 6ft up on a post which is on a grass verge in the car park, sloping down towards the pavement/barrier, and the post itself is also at an angle (as though it has been hit by a vehicle at some point), so not exactly accessible from the flat part of the car park with it being slanted in two directions.
My questions are:
1) Would a "warning" count as a notice to driver - will VCS/Elms Legal be required to provide evidence of the contents of this to answer a defense relating to it being a notice to driver?
2) On the basis that the alleged contravention has not been explained at any point, where would one stand on this?
3) If the claimant contends that the contravention is actually due to the term that one must be a customer and in the store in order to qualify for parking, does the claimant need to prove that the driver was not a customer/present in the store? If so, what would be sufficient proof - would the word of the parking attendant be sufficient for this, or would there need to be something further?
4) As with question 3, Would there be any basis to argue the wording of the contravention if they are claiming it is the term relating to being a customer - given that the sign indicates the entirety of the car park is for customers only, there would be no further restricted or prohibited areas within the car park and/or no terms indicating what would constitute an area of the car park that is under any further restriction or prohibition, additionally, that if they are basing their contravention notices on the pre-existing (2007) order, then code 95 "Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than that designated" would be a more accurate description?
5) With regard to the sign not being at the entrance despite being claimed otherwise, and the signs within the car park stating that a contract has been entered by merely entering this private land, can it be defended on the basis that the claimant's own signage states that the contract has been entered prior to any possibility of the terms of that contract being viewed?
6) Further to question 5, given the wording of the sign, stating that "Parking for Topps Tiles Customers Only Whilst In Store" - by nature of this wording, the contract is automatically breached on the basis that one cannot be in store at the point of parking the vehicle, exiting the vehicle, walking to the store, exiting the store, driving away - would this term still be enforceable if it is worded in such a way as to preclude being on site while not in the store?
7) I am unfamiliar with the whole court process - If VCS/Elms Legal do not provide any further response to the requests made regarding the specific contravention and/or the document placed on the windscreen, before the due date for my defense to be submitted (10th May latest), presumably my defense would be based on the information I have available to me - is the claimant then able to submit evidence in response to my defense - given that I had to specifically ask for the evidence this time round, how would I know if they have submitted additional evidence, and would I have an opportunity to respond to their response to my defense and/or any evidence they submit?
8) Prior to my identifying the facts based on the evidence pack I requested, I had spoken with VCS and Elms Legal about negotiating a settlement so that the case didn't need to go to court - VCS would only refer me to their litigation department (essentially a phone number with a number of options - one is an automated payment option that does not accept the reference number, the remaining options are all automated responses stating that the issue selected is not handled by that department (so the line is essentially entirely automated, despite statements to the effect that they are busy due to covid and may have to wait in a queue to answer, etc. there is no option that will get you through to a human being, even failing to select any options or selecting an invalid option repeats the options several times and then terminates the call) - their email address has not responded to my request sent over two weeks ago, and Elms Legal have categorically stated that it is too late to discuss any option for settlement - I asked whether the person on the phone had the authority to reject any option for a settlement and they confirmed that they did - they confirmed that the only options they were offering were to pay the claimed amount in full including the court and legal representative's costs (through the MCOL site as an admission of liability) or to dispute the claim. On this basis, and should the worst case scenario occur with the case, will I get an opportunity argue a mitigation of the overall amount claimed? (the initial PCN was £100, they are now seeking £160, £25 court fee, £50 legal representative's costs, for a total of £235)
--
To answer any potential questions I may be asked on this:
1) I cannot confirm whether the driver was actually in the store at the time - given that this is nearly 4 years ago, one couldn't be certain on this - it is entirely possible that the driver went elsewhere in addition to the store.
2) Topps Tiles have confirmed that they are not the land owners, so any agreement between VCS Ltd and the landowner is not related to them. They are unaware of how they could offer any help if at all in this case as they don't deal with VCS.
3) The street view image of the car park in question is https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.89...7i13312!8i6656
4) The photos in the evidence pack are timestamped for the date of the contravention, with a period of around 3 minutes between the first and last. The timestamps indicate a time when the store would have been open to customers.
5) To my knowledge there would not have been any requirement to register the vehicle number plate on entry to the store - certainly nothing visible in the street view.
6) The close up photo of the sign is identifiable as the sign in the streetview to the left of the entrance - this can be confirmed by the tree in the background and the two shops opposite. The car is photographed as being parked facing the left wall with the blue paint/graffiti.
Any help/advice on this would be gratefully appreciated, thank you.
I have received a county court claim for a parking charge notice dating back to 2017. So far, I have acknowledged receipt of service, and I have contacted the claimant (VCS) and the company handling the case (Elms Legal). I have received an evidence pack on request, that includes a copy of the NTK, Final reminder, a close up photograph of a sign within the car park, several photos of the car in the car park - including one showing the windscreen of the car with an affixed plastic documents envelope that has been placed there, presumably by the person taking the photos.
So far I have the following points raised with Elms Legal, and they are currently not receiving confirmation from the claimant (VCS) regarding these points:
1) the Notice to keeper and subsequent court claim make reference to the contravention as, "81) PARKED IN A RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED AREA" - it provides no further detail as to what this means or how this has been identified.
The photo of the sign makes no reference to restricted or prohibited areas of the car park, and the only terms that are stated on the sign are that it is "Parking for Topps Tiles Customers Only Whilst In Store" and "! Max Stay 2 Hours - No Return Within 1 Hour !"
Upon speaking to Vehicle Control Services Ltd, they advised me the following:
a) They do not have a singular list of terms and conditions as each car park has its own terms and conditions as indicated on the sign displayed.
b) The number (81) does not indicate they have 81 or more contravention types - it is simply a code they use
c) The meaning of this particular contravention *may* be not in a bay, or in an area designated as no parking. (They could not confirm the reason for the specific contravention)
Upon speaking to Elms Legal, they confirmed they did not have any further details regarding the contravention and would need to request that information from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
There are no marked bays, the car itself is photographed below a sign that indicates Topps Tiles Customer Parking, there are areas in front of the store with cross hatching, but it is clear the car is parked in area where there are no markings to restrict or prohibit parking, and no indication that cars are expected to park in any particular areas
2) The photograph of the car windscreen with the document pocket suggests a notice to driver - on this basis, it would violate the Notice to Keeper timeline (issued 6 days after the contravention date) as per PoFa 2012.
I spoke with Elms Legal again about this fact, and they could only suggest that the document was merely a warning, and not an actual notice to driver, however they do not have a copy of the document to confirm either way, and again have requested this from Vehicle Control Services Ltd.
Despite Vehicle Control Services Ltd indicating that these are just codes they use - I did find a similar reference to the code with "The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Order 2007." which has "81 Parked in a restricted area in an off-street car park or housing estate" and further guidance from the government pertaining to this indicates: "Ensure that you check all markings and signs at the location where you wish to park your vehicle. Do not park within hatched areas or any space which is signed as prohibited."
Further to these points, I have also been able to determine the following point:
1) There is no sign at the entrance of the car park - despite this being mentioned in the claim as "The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations."
The photograph of the close-up sign clearly shows a pavement and road behind it, with a low level barrier/ going across. This highlights that the sign is facing inward (not visible to the public outside the car park).
A google street view image of the car park further highlights there are no signs prominent from outside the car park (some signs about 8ft up on the wall sideways to the street, but would not be possible to read from the pavement, letalone from a vehicle), and no signs whatsoever at the entrance.
The photographed sign in question appears to be approximately 6ft up on a post which is on a grass verge in the car park, sloping down towards the pavement/barrier, and the post itself is also at an angle (as though it has been hit by a vehicle at some point), so not exactly accessible from the flat part of the car park with it being slanted in two directions.
My questions are:
1) Would a "warning" count as a notice to driver - will VCS/Elms Legal be required to provide evidence of the contents of this to answer a defense relating to it being a notice to driver?
2) On the basis that the alleged contravention has not been explained at any point, where would one stand on this?
3) If the claimant contends that the contravention is actually due to the term that one must be a customer and in the store in order to qualify for parking, does the claimant need to prove that the driver was not a customer/present in the store? If so, what would be sufficient proof - would the word of the parking attendant be sufficient for this, or would there need to be something further?
4) As with question 3, Would there be any basis to argue the wording of the contravention if they are claiming it is the term relating to being a customer - given that the sign indicates the entirety of the car park is for customers only, there would be no further restricted or prohibited areas within the car park and/or no terms indicating what would constitute an area of the car park that is under any further restriction or prohibition, additionally, that if they are basing their contravention notices on the pre-existing (2007) order, then code 95 "Parked in a parking place for a purpose other than that designated" would be a more accurate description?
5) With regard to the sign not being at the entrance despite being claimed otherwise, and the signs within the car park stating that a contract has been entered by merely entering this private land, can it be defended on the basis that the claimant's own signage states that the contract has been entered prior to any possibility of the terms of that contract being viewed?
6) Further to question 5, given the wording of the sign, stating that "Parking for Topps Tiles Customers Only Whilst In Store" - by nature of this wording, the contract is automatically breached on the basis that one cannot be in store at the point of parking the vehicle, exiting the vehicle, walking to the store, exiting the store, driving away - would this term still be enforceable if it is worded in such a way as to preclude being on site while not in the store?
7) I am unfamiliar with the whole court process - If VCS/Elms Legal do not provide any further response to the requests made regarding the specific contravention and/or the document placed on the windscreen, before the due date for my defense to be submitted (10th May latest), presumably my defense would be based on the information I have available to me - is the claimant then able to submit evidence in response to my defense - given that I had to specifically ask for the evidence this time round, how would I know if they have submitted additional evidence, and would I have an opportunity to respond to their response to my defense and/or any evidence they submit?
8) Prior to my identifying the facts based on the evidence pack I requested, I had spoken with VCS and Elms Legal about negotiating a settlement so that the case didn't need to go to court - VCS would only refer me to their litigation department (essentially a phone number with a number of options - one is an automated payment option that does not accept the reference number, the remaining options are all automated responses stating that the issue selected is not handled by that department (so the line is essentially entirely automated, despite statements to the effect that they are busy due to covid and may have to wait in a queue to answer, etc. there is no option that will get you through to a human being, even failing to select any options or selecting an invalid option repeats the options several times and then terminates the call) - their email address has not responded to my request sent over two weeks ago, and Elms Legal have categorically stated that it is too late to discuss any option for settlement - I asked whether the person on the phone had the authority to reject any option for a settlement and they confirmed that they did - they confirmed that the only options they were offering were to pay the claimed amount in full including the court and legal representative's costs (through the MCOL site as an admission of liability) or to dispute the claim. On this basis, and should the worst case scenario occur with the case, will I get an opportunity argue a mitigation of the overall amount claimed? (the initial PCN was £100, they are now seeking £160, £25 court fee, £50 legal representative's costs, for a total of £235)
--
To answer any potential questions I may be asked on this:
1) I cannot confirm whether the driver was actually in the store at the time - given that this is nearly 4 years ago, one couldn't be certain on this - it is entirely possible that the driver went elsewhere in addition to the store.
2) Topps Tiles have confirmed that they are not the land owners, so any agreement between VCS Ltd and the landowner is not related to them. They are unaware of how they could offer any help if at all in this case as they don't deal with VCS.
3) The street view image of the car park in question is https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.89...7i13312!8i6656
4) The photos in the evidence pack are timestamped for the date of the contravention, with a period of around 3 minutes between the first and last. The timestamps indicate a time when the store would have been open to customers.
5) To my knowledge there would not have been any requirement to register the vehicle number plate on entry to the store - certainly nothing visible in the street view.
6) The close up photo of the sign is identifiable as the sign in the streetview to the left of the entrance - this can be confirmed by the tree in the background and the two shops opposite. The car is photographed as being parked facing the left wall with the blue paint/graffiti.
Any help/advice on this would be gratefully appreciated, thank you.
Comment