VCS/BW Legal County Court Claim

downhilljoe

Hi all,

This is another Vehicle Control Services/BW Legal thread I'm afraid. So, I started receiving letters from VCS around year ago regarding a parking/stopping fine in Liverpool Business Park for a vehicle that I was the keeper of. On reading the advice of various sources/forums I decided to simply ignore these letters, they continued to arrive from various companies such as VCS/BW Legal/Zenith/Debt Recovery Plus etc. etc. However, recently I received a letter from BW Legal that included County Court Claim papers. After reading advice I completed the Acknowledgement of Service and intend to defend against the full amount of the claim.

On the day in question the driver of the vehicle pulled into a disused junction (blocked by large concrete blocks) that lead onto an area of scrubland due to unusual engine noises and a flashing engine warning light. However, the engine was never turned off and the car was stopped in the junction for less than 2 minutes as the engine issue resolved itself. In the time the vehicle was stopped a camera van must have driven passed, stopped and photographed the vehicle pulled into the junction.

Personally, I feel that the parking charge is unfair due to the following reasons:
-Stopping for 2 minutes in a disused junction can't be a justifiable reason for any loss to the business.
-It was safer to stop the vehicle than proceed to drive with engine issues.
-There were 'No Stopping' signs on the road but these were unclear and impossible to read from a moving vehicle.

I have began to form a statement of defence based on information on other threads, however I was wondering if anyone could provide any advice specific to stopping rather than parking (particularly any other cases in the Liverpool Business Park), or links to any threads that would provide this info. I will also try and upload photos of both the signs and the junction in question.

Sorry if any of this is unclear, its late and I've written this mostly from memory.

Thank you in advance.

The_Deep

Absolutely ridiculous, read this.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html

In some cases , where a warning light comes on, the manual tells the driver to stop immediately. A seized engine could cause a fatality.


You might wish to take a view on whether this is wasting the court's time and threaten the Solicitor with a CPR27.14(2)(g) claim if you prevail.

Redx

perhaps you could use this Excel thread for inspiration as HO87 pasted 2 documents into it , VCS and EXCEL are sister companies

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5505546

it may not answer your specific questions , but that older case by VCS at the airport was thrown out due to car trouble

downhilljoe

Thanks for the replies, I'll have a read through those threads and draft up a defence statement this weekend and post it up once I'm done.

Cheers

Redx

you will find plenty of info on similar cases over on pepipoo forums, so take a look and learn from what others are doing and saying and advising

downhilljoe

The draft of my statement of defence is below. The documents posted by HO87 seemed to cover most of the important points so I have mainly used that. I have added Points 2&3 which are more relevant to my defence, any advice on the wording/overall structure would be much appreciated, particularly points 2/3. Also when and how should I submit a Section 18?

Thanks in advance.



**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 --/--/2015 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 a mechanical issue, signified by an engine warning light, the driver pulled over until they were sure the vehicle was safe to continue to drive. 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. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the driver at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.

10. 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.

11. 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.

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

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

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

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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”.

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

24. 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.

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

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

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement of Defence, --/08/2016, are true.

Signed

[MY NAME]**

Herzlos

Sounds good to me.

The_Deep

Very good, but this must have taken several hours of your time.

Warn the PPC that, if the PCN is overturned at court. you will be seeking costs under CPR27.14(2)(g). Unreasonable behaviour.

Herzlos

This is at County Court stage, not POPLA. You should ask for POPLA as a method of ADR if possible. Otherwise make sure you account for it in your costs and ask the judge to award them when you win.

The_Deep

You should ask for POPLA as a method of ADR


I disagree, this needs to get in front of a judge. It is the only way we can get this sort of scam stopped.

Popla will cost the PPC about £50-£60 and they may find for the PPC, after all they are rayher hit and miss, yet a loss in court will cost the PPC £££s.

downhilljoe

Thanks for the replies and the advice! Defence submitted today, any idea how long it will be before I hear back?

Cheers, J