VCS PCN - Help Needed

AB_Express

The details in the thread below are almost identical to my situation. Sounds like they pulled over on the same bit of dirt track too.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5512009

Redx

in that case a lot of the work has been done for you , lol

Coupon-mad

AB_Express wrote: »

Got back from my holiday today to find County Court Claim papers.

Will read through the stickies again and get my defence ready.

The original PCN was for £60, however in the particulars of claim they say it is £100.

Have you acknowledged service, leaving the defence box blank? As per other defence threads, that gets your time extended to 28 days from service of the court papers. Show us your defence here even if similar to the other ones you have read, we want to help and your draft defence may also help other newbies later.

And don't reply by private message (pm) if you are sent a 'pm' by any poster with less than 1000 posts, offering to 'help'. You never know who they are and we do not do this off-forum.

AB_Express

I have acknowledged service

Coupon-mad

Great, we'll help some more, with your defence wording, if you can show us a draft please.

AB_Express

Below is my statement of defence. I can add more detail around why the car stopped, i.e. the car was subsequently booked into a garage, what was wrong with the gearbox and I even have photos of the gearbox when it was taken out of the car.

**Statement of Defence

I am [MY NAME], defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the stopping of a [COLOUR MAKE MODEL] motor vehicle registration number [REG.] on --/--/2013 at the International Business Park, Liverpool that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant.

2. As the Defendant in this matter, I wish to bring to the courts attention the reason for stoppage of the vehicle. The stoppage was due to the driver checking an oil leak. Evidence of which can be seen in the images on the original PCN where the driver can be seen on their hands and knees looking under the vehicle. As the Defendant I suggest that it is unreasonable that the Claimant seeks to charge for such an action and that it is unreasonable to not allow vehicles to stop under such circumstances.

3. Additionally, it is suggested that the roadway in which the vehicle was stopped, shown in the images provided by the Claimant, was clearly disused. Therefore, the £100 parking charge is clearly unreasonable for the stoppage of a vehicle as neither the Claimant nor landowner would experience loss of business as a result of these actions.

4. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

5. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.

6. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore, the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.

7. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.

8. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.

9. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.

10. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

11. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

12. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a “relevant obligation” existed.

13. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a “relevant obligation” the court is invited to strike the matter out.

14. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgment in Elliott –v- Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.

15. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.

16. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty (it was a criminal matter) on a surfeit of evidence including forensic evidence of being the driver at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.

17. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.

18. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

19. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine –v- London Borough of Waltham Forest insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation.

20. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

21. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.

22. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

23. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye –v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.

24. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

25. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, --/09/2016, are true.

Signed

[MY NAME]**

AB_Express

Do I need to send a part 18 request?

Coupon-mad

You can send a Part 18 request (not too long, you want to look like the reasonable party) asking a few questions you consider have not been clarified.

Re this point I would add the extra bit shown in blue:

19. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest ('Vine') insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation. Vine also supports my defence in that it was held that if it was a matter of fact that a driver who did not see/could not be held to have read and agreed terms on a parking sign, due to an emergency (in Vine, the illness of the driver can be compared to this case with the unforeseen mechanical emergency) cannot be bound by those terms.

If the pictures of 'the driver looking under the vehicle' show that person to be the same person as the Defendant, then change your stance to write the defence in the first person as the driver, because you will not be able to argue otherwise in front of a Judge if the keeper is clearly the driver! Start as you mean to go on - was the keeper the driver, proved by photos of him that the Judge will see is the person before the court?

If so, then also remove all these - they are going nowhere if the keeper was shown to be the driver, in photos - and re-number the rest:

11. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

12. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (the “Act”) the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a “relevant obligation” either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a “relevant obligation” existed.

13. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence or otherwise of a “relevant obligation” the court is invited to strike the matter out.

14. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgment in Elliott –v- Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.

15. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.

16. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty (it was a criminal matter) on a surfeit of evidence including forensic evidence of being the driver at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially this evidence proved the case to a criminal standard not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.

AB_Express

Amended to say I was the driver and have taken out the paragraphs that are not applicable.


**Statement of Defence

I am [MY NAME], defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the stopping of a [COLOUR MAKE MODEL] motor vehicle registration number [REG.] on --/--/2013 at the International Business Park, Liverpool that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant.

2. As the Defendant in this matter, I wish to bring to the courts attention the reason for stoppage of the vehicle. I stopped the vehicle to check an oil leak. Evidence of which can be seen in the images on the original PCN where I can be seen on my hands and knees looking under the vehicle. As the Defendant I suggest that it is unreasonable that the Claimant seeks to charge for such an action and that it is unreasonable to not allow vehicles to stop under such circumstances.

3. Additionally, it is suggested that the roadway in which the vehicle was stopped, shown in the images provided by the Claimant, was clearly disused. Therefore, the £100 parking charge is clearly unreasonable for the stoppage of a vehicle as neither the Claimant nor landowner would experience loss of business as a result of these actions.

4. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

5. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.

6. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore, the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.

7. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but smacks of a “Cut and Paste” approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant’s duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.

8. Additionally such scant Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.

9. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.

10. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

11. I will seek to argue a more detailed rebuttal should the Claimant plead the case cited but in any event submit that the case cited be disregarded.

12. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.

13. In due course I will ask the court to consider the frequently overlooked test established by Roskill LJ in the matter of Vine -v- London Borough of Waltham Forest ('Vine') insofar as it relates to the display of signage in conveying an obligation. Vine also supports my defence in that it was held that if it was a matter of fact that a driver who did not see/could not be held to have read and agreed terms on a parking sign, due to an emergency (in Vine, the illness of the driver can be compared to this case with the unforeseen mechanical emergency) cannot be bound by those terms.

14. Although the above case turned on the application of the principle of volenti non fit injuria as opposed to the creation of a contract to park I will submit that the test created is nevertheless relevant and is entirely applicable to the instant matter.

15. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimant’s signs that the most onerous term – the £100 parking charge notice – is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR’s “Red Hand Rule”.

16. In the absence of any signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.

17. It is further anticipated that the Claimant may seek to rely on the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of ParkingEye –v- Beavis. In due course I will seek to demonstrate that the instant matter may be distinguished from that case.

18. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

19. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, --/09/2016, are true.

Signed

[MY NAME]**

AB_Express

This is the part 18 HO87 posted in another thread. Think all the points apply in my case.


1. Please identify the head or heads of action in which this claim is based?
a). If not the principal, in what capacity does the Claimant purport to act?
b). Please identify the landowner

2. Please confirm that the Claimant can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner either by way of a written authority contract, deed or lease?
a). That this/these document(s) is/are in the Claimant’s possession or if not when they will be.
b). That such document(s) are available for inspection and if not when they will be.
c). That copies of the document(s) can be provided and that the originals will be available at court.

3. If it is the Claimant’s case that their claim is based in contract and that such a contract was conveyed by way of signs displayed at the location please confirm the following:
a). That the Claimant is able to produce a copy of all the various signs at the location indicating the various text point sizes together with a contemporaneous map or plan showing where they are deployed on site.
b). A contemporaneous schedule of works/maintenance showing how and when such signs on-site were repaired, replaced and cleaned etc.


4. Please confirm whether it is the Claimant’s intention to adduce photographs and or video footage of the relevant event and:
a). That such photographs and/or footage is in the Claimant’s possession and if not when it will be?
b). That such photographs and/or footage are available for inspection and if not when they will be?
c). That copies of the photographs and/or footage can be provided and that all the originals will be available at court.


5. Please confirm that the Claimant has in his possession an analysis of the costs incurred that form the additional charges included in the claim and:
a). That copies of such an analysis and other attendant documents upon which the analysis is based are available for inspection and if not when they will be?
b). That copies can be provided of the analysis and attendant documents and that all original documents upon which the Claimant might seek to rely on in this respect will be available at court.




TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU. SERVICE WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ON THE SECOND BUSINESS DAY AFTER POSTING.