Vehicle Control Services County Court Claim Form Received

Ralph-y

have a look at purchasing

http://www.parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html

it comes highly recommended by forum members ....

good luck

Ralph:cool:

salmosalaris

When is your defence due ?
If it was an MCOL form it is 33 days from the issue date

jennifergriffin

salmosalaris wrote: »

When is your defence due ?
If it was an MCOL form it is 33 days from the issue date

it's due tomorrow I called them to confirm

jennifergriffin

Ralph-y wrote: »

have a look at purchasing

http://www.parking-prankster.com/court-claim.html

it comes highly recommended by forum members ....

good luck

Ralph:cool:

many thanks i'll take a look

pappa_golf

[QUOTE=jennifergriffin;69844872]So, the landowner got his secretary to email VCS and ask them to alleviate the costs but they came back saying no as I was rude and uncooperative they are taking me to court! haha. I have all email correspondence between the landowner and myself and also between VCS and myself, yes I may have been rude, but I was still professional and never swore, it's rather frustrating when you get a car parking ticket and numerous threatening letters through your door when you weren't even the one who parked there!!! so yes I was rude!!

anyway I need to submit my defence by tomorrow. I was wondering how to go about claiming for all the time/research I've put into this, I know someone mentioned £19/hr, how can I prove how long i've spent on it (literally hours!!)

thanks[/QUOTE]




So, the landowner got his secretary to email VCS and ask them to alleviate the costs but they came back saying no as I was rude and uncooperative they are taking me to court


directly against their employers wish ? this should/could be interesting


in this case VCS have been told they do not have authority to pursue this in court


if this ends up in court , and after you win , you will be bring a claim for costs against the land owner?


he needs to be told this now , then he realises what type of company HE EMPLOYS , and is responsible for as an employer

salmosalaris

Ok this is off the cuff and without the benefit of seeing anything other than this thread . Here is the basis for a defence on which you could later expand . Dont use anything if untrue .

Im aware you need to submit something quickly to avoid a default judgment . Others may add

DEFENCE STATEMENT

I am (name) of (address) defendant in this matter .
I deny liability for the entirety of this claim .

The car was parked directly outside of my garage on land over which the vehicle has a right of way. The cross hatchings marked on the surface are designed to deter vehicles , other than those entitled to , from blocking the entrance to my garage . The suggestion that this charge is lawful or justified is without foundation . The landowner has even instructed the Claimant to drop their claim but they have ignored it for no justifiable reason . In addition I rely on the following :

1. I am the registered vehicle xxxx but was not the driver on the material date . The Claimant has not complied with the strict statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) and consequently cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable for this purported obligation.

2. The signage on site does not create a contract by which the driver could be bound .

3. Even if a contract was formed with the driver ( which is denied ) the purported infraction , with reference to the signage,does not constitute either a breach of that contract or the provision of a service by which a contractually agreed sum would become payable

4. I do not believe the Claimant has the locus standi to litigate in their own name as they are not the landowner and demand that they produce evidence, by way of an unredacted contract with the landowner, to demonstrate that they do. As agent of a disclosed Principal any claim should be brought by the landowner , a party who has actually instructed their agent to drop the claim .

5. The Claimant has suffered no loss and their charge is extravagant , unconscionable and without any commercial or social justification whereby it could avoid being anything but an unlawful penalty should the Claimant be basing the charge on damages for breach of contract.

6. The charge cannot be considered as a contractually agreed sum for the right to park . For such a contract to be valid it would require a genuine offer and the Claimant cannot posdibly suggest a genuine offer can be made of something that is also strictly forbidden . In addition such a charge would also attract VAT which in this situation it does not. If the Claimant seeks to use this interpretation for the charge it is clearly simply a penalty for breaching the Claimant's own twrms and conditions dressed up as a contractually agreed sum and is unenforceable .

7. With reference to the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the charge is clearly an unfair contract term and unenforceable .

8 I do not believe the Claimant has incurred legal costs of £70 and put them to strict proof that they have . I am not liable for these costs .

I believe the contents of this statement to be true

jennifergriffin

salmosalaris wrote: »

Ok this is off the cuff and without the benefit of seeing anything other than this thread . Here is the basis for a defence on which you could later expand . Dont use anything if untrue .

Im aware you need to submit something quickly to avoid a default judgment . Others may add

DEFENCE STATEMENT

I am (name) of (address) defendant in this matter .
I deny liability for the entirety of this claim .

The car was parked directly outside of my garage on land over which the vehicle has a right of way. The cross hatchings marked on the surface are designed to deter vehicles , other than those entitled to , from blocking the entrance to my garage . The suggestion that this charge is lawful or justified is without foundation . The landowner has even instructed the Claimant to drop their claim but they have ignored it for no justifiable reason . In addition I rely on the following :

1. I am the registered vehicle xxxx but was not the driver on the material date . The Claimant has not complied with the strict statutory requirements of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) and consequently cannot rely on the provisions of the Act and hold me liable for this purported obligation.

2. The signage on site does not create a contract by which the driver could be bound .

3. Even if a contract was formed with the driver ( which is denied ) the purported infraction , with reference to the signage,does not constitute either a breach of that contract or the provision of a service by which a contractually agreed sum would become payable

4. I do not believe the Claimant has the locus standi to litigate in their own name as they are not the landowner and demand that they produce evidence, by way of an unredacted contract with the landowner, to demonstrate that they do. As agent of a disclosed Principal any claim should be brought by the landowner , a party who has actually instructed their agent to drop the claim .

5. The Claimant has suffered no loss and their charge is extravagant , unconscionable and without any commercial or social justification whereby it could avoid being anything but an unlawful penalty should the Claimant be basing the charge on damages for breach of contract.

6. The charge cannot be considered as a contractually agreed sum for the right to park . For such a contract to be valid it would require a genuine offer and the Claimant cannot posdibly suggest a genuine offer can be made of something that is also strictly forbidden . In addition such a charge would also attract VAT which in this situation it does not. If the Claimant seeks to use this interpretation for the charge it is clearly simply a penalty for breaching the Claimant's own twrms and conditions dressed up as a contractually agreed sum and is unenforceable .

7. With reference to the Consumer Rights Act (2015) the charge is clearly an unfair contract term and unenforceable .

8 I do not believe the Claimant has incurred legal costs of £70 and put them to strict proof that they have . I am not liable for these costs .

I believe the contents of this statement to be true

brilliant, thank you so much!

The_Deep

If you win this, or if they fail to turn up, think about asking for full costs under CPR27.14(2)(g).


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27


unreasonable behaviour.

jennifergriffin

The_Deep wrote: »

If you win this, or if they fail to turn up, think about asking for full costs under CPR27.14(2)(g).


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27


unreasonable behaviour.

Thank you, I will do

pappa_golf

sorry , page 2 and 40 poste , do you own or rent the garage ? did you find out OFFICIALLY who owned the spare area of land that you drive over to get access (and parked on) , just silly things but if owned/leased then you could have legal right of way by AN OTHER person , and VCS may not have rights to patrol there , sorry if its been covered , please reply