Excel and Count Court Business Centre

Coupon-mad

I suggest maybe some changes like this:

5. It is denied that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit. The claimant has provided no evidence showing all windows of the vehicle on the day. [STRIKE]to assert their claim that a permit was not displayed[/STRIKE]. The driver has confirmed that a valid permit was in fact on display in the front offside window, adjacent to the main front window. It [STRIKE]had slid over to[/STRIKE] was displayed in a prominent position at the side window [STRIKE]but[/STRIKE] and was clearly visible to anyone inspecting the car.

6. Moreover the point that no permit was on display cannot be examined [STRIKE]since[/STRIKE] if the operator who placed the ticket is not present as a witness. Further, it is not believed that person was acting for this claimant.

7. No contract exists between drivers of this car and this claimant.

(i) The car park has two signs, one placed by the claimant and the other by a completely different Limited company - Excel Parking Services Ltd.
(ii) The defendant's permit [STRIKE]that was displayed[/STRIKE] was issued by Excel Parking Services, not the claimant.
(iii) The car park is also patrolled by an Excel operative.
(iv) The disputed parking notice [STRIKE]that[/STRIKE] requested payment to Excel, not the claimant. The claimant has at no time been involved in the parking arrangement and admits in the Particulars of Claim that it did not issue the parking notice.
(v) The defendant is unable to [STRIKE]fails to[/STRIKE] understand what authority the claimant had to place its own sign and how the small print terms on an unremarkable VCS sign can bind an Excel Parking Services permit holder.
(vi) The defendant is unable to understand in what capacity the claimant has brought the claim.
(vii) The defendant has never been informed that the disputed debt has been assigned to the claimant.
(viii) This claimant is therefore a stranger to any alleged parking contract at this site.

And you need a point which puts the claimant to strict proof of expenditure of an additional £136 over and above the original parking charge and how permit holders were informed of/expressly agreed to these wholly disproportionate 'costs' which are a penalty in themselves. Adding a small claim fee and interest is one thing but to add other costs which permit holders cannot have agreed to, is quite another.

If you can find the paperwork or email from Excel which accompanied the permit, does it state £100 PCN can arise (SPECIFICALLY quantifying £100 as a figure and specifically quantifying the legal/admin/debt collection fee (or whatever VCS call it)? Does it say that it is a term of the Excel permit scheme that permit holders can be liable to pay VCS £100 (stated as a figure, not vague 'charge' or 'may be liable for a PCN') and/or did the terms that came with the permit say that Excel permit holders are also bound by VCS signage on site for full t&cs?

I doubt it. Make sure you have that in your defence.

Not sure you have enough about signage. If the VCS sign does get examined at any hearing your defence needs to have at least raised the fact the terms are unreadable/in small print and cannot have introduced a new contract, with onerous restrictions and charges, re-offering parking terms which are already offered by Excel, who provided the permit.

Not sure you've made enough of the fact that neither Excel nor this claimant own or have any title in this land.

cathieb_58

Thank you for your advice. I have made some changes and additions as per below. I will get the opportunity to expand on these points further down the line as far as I am aware?
I have received another letter from BW Legal today chasing payment and threatening court action - this letter was dated 2 weeks after the court proceedings were issued. It seems as though they don't really know what there are doing, either that or they don't believe they have any prospects of success and are hoping to receive payment before a defence is entered.
How is the below as my initial defence?


I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

1. It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. It is not admitted that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, other drivers had access to the vehicle and use the car park.

3. VCS have taken this action against myself as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
They have failed to invoke Keeper Liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and have not adduced any evidence to show the Keeper and the Driver are the same person. Since they had an opportunity to invoke keeper liability but chose not to do so the liability of payment remains with the driver. There is no evidence of who that may have been and mere supposition is insufficient.


4. It is denied that the vehicle was parked without displaying a valid permit. The claimant has provided no evidence showing all of the windows of the vehicle on the day. The driver has confirmed that a valid permit was in fact on display in the front offside window, adjacent to the main front window. It was displayed in a prominent position at the side window and was clearly visible to the inspecting officer.

5. Moreover the point that no permit was on display cannot be examined if the operator who placed the ticket is not present as a witness. Further, it is not believed this person was acting for this claimant.

6.No contract exists between the driver of this vehicle and the claimant.
(i) The car park has two signs, one placed by the claimant and one placed by a completely different Limited Company – Excel Parking Services Ltd.
(ii) The defendant's permit was issued by Excel Parking Services not the claimant.
(iii) The car park is also patrolled by an Excel operative who issued the disputed parking charge notice that requested payment to Excel not the claimant.
(iv) The claimant has at no time been involved in the parking arrangement and admits in the Particulars of Claim that it did not issue the parking notice.
(v) The defendant is unable to understand what authority the claimant had to place its own sign and how the small print terms on an unremarkable Vehicle Control Services sign can bind an Excel Parking Services permit holder.
(vi) The defendant is unable to understand in what capacity the claimant has brought the claim.
(vii) The defendant has never been informed that the disputed debt has been assigned to the claimant.
(viii) This claimant is therefore a stranger to any alleged parking contract at this site

7. If the driver was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum. The claimant is put to strict proof that they are the owner of the land and have entitlement to bring this claim.

8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and VCS have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.


9. Careful analysis of the Supreme Court judgment (ParkingEye v Beavis) Exhibit… is not as the Claimant may believe, a judicial green light legitimising all parking charges. It is indeed quite the reverse, and the onus is on the Claimant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest in enforcing their charge and that the charge is proportionate to that interest. In this case they do not and it is not.

10. The vehicle is already subject to a contract and a valid permit confirming this contract was displayed in the vehicle at the time. The permit had been paid for and contract running from April 2015 – April 2016, in essence, this contact had already concluded. New terms of contact cannot be added after the contract is signed governing display or otherwise.

11. The claimant is put to strict proof of the expenditure of the additional £136 over and above the original parking charge.

12. The claimant is put to strict proof of how permit holders were informed of and expressly agreed to these wholly disproportionate ‘costs’ which are penalties in themselves.

13. The permit issued by Excel does not refer to a £100 parking charge notice.

14. The permit issued by Excel does not specifically quantify the contractual costs nor the legal fees claimed, therefore it cannot be proven that these charges have been agreed.

15. The claimant is put to strict proof that a term of the Excel permit scheme is that permit holders can be liable to pay Vehicle Control Services £100 and that Excel permit holders are bound by Vehicle Control Service signage placed around the car park.

16. The signage placed on site by Excel states ‘company name permit holders only’ There are no additional terms or conditions stated on the sign. It is reasonable that an Excel Permit holder would rely on this sign, disregarding a sign placed by a third party company – Vehicle Control Services as they have no involvement in the contract in place between Excel and the permit holder.

17. The terms of use stated within the Vehicle Control Services sign are in small print. It is disputed that these terms could have introduced a new contract with onerous restrictions and charges, re-offering parking terms which are already offered by Excel, who provided the permit.

The Defendant invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success.
Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Coupon-mad

inspecting officer.

Don't give him/her authority they don't have, the Judge may not know but their is no 'officer' involved. 'Employee' will do.

Apart from that I would just add a stattement of truth at the end and submit it online via MCOL and see if they proceed.