Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

Coupon-mad

They will have a limited interest because that's why they are there, acting on behalf of the landowner to ticket cars. There can't be no interest at all, don't say that.

It is also NOTHING to do with whether VCS are the landowner.

But they have to show that their legitimate interest is so compelling that it justifies charging £100 rather than any nominal loss, thereby sidestepping the 'penalty rule' (which is what ParkingEye did in the Beavis case). ParkingEye were not the landowner either.

In Beavis, their interest was painted as being to ensure turnaround of customers so that parking spaces would not be taken up for more than 2 hours. This created an overriding 'commercial justification' where the spaces had value to the landowner/retailers. That was why the charge in that case alone, was deemed to escape the usual rule that strikes out unfair penalties in consumer contracts and restricts recovery to loss/damages (normally zero).

RichieBoy56

Here is my latest request for additional information:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: (Claimant's name) v (my name) Case No:

On (date) I received the claim form in this case issued by you out of the (Name) county court.

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

As your particulars of claim are lacking in detail I require the following information in order to consider my defence:

1. How you intend to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
2. A copy of the signage present on the day of the alleged parking contravention.
3. A copy of the car park plan indicating the location and size of all signs on the day of the alleged parking contravention.
4. A copy of the car park plan indicating the location and size of all signs today.
5. Details of any changes to signs (additional or repositioned) since the alleged parking contravention date.
6. Maintenance records and records of signage changes for the site for a reasonable period before and after the event.
7. Proof of planning permission granted for the use of the land for car parking and signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.
8. Details of the actual breach of contract you are claiming and the legitimate interest you claim that you are protecting that allows you to suspend the penalty rule.
9. Do you have written authority from the landowner to pursue parking charges to court in your own name?
10. If so, what is the form of this written authority, and on what date was it signed by the landowner?
11. Please provide a redacted copy showing at least the date signed and the authority to pursue charges in your own name, plus any other non-confidential information.
12. What is the name and address of the party who contracted with VCS for the provision of your services?
13. What is the name and address of the landowner if different?
14. Are you acting as an agent for the landowner?
15. Do you consider that any contract you allege is in force is between the motorist and the land occupier, or between the motorist and yourselves?
16. Do you consider that any debt is owed to yourselves, or to the land occupier?
17. Do you consider that the debt is for breach of contract?
18. Do you agree that your entrance signage on the date of the alleged parking incident did not comply with the specifications in Schedule 1 of the IPC Code of Practice?
19. Do you have written agreement from the IPC that you did not require entrance signage or that it could be omitted?
20. Are your charges intended to be a deterrent?
21. Do you believe the £60 debt collection charge was actually incurred? If not, what figure do you think was actually incurred in filing the case?
22. Copies of the notice to driver, notice to keeper and any other correspondence from VCS to the defendant that you intend to rely upon in court.
23. A full breakdown of your charge for pre-estimate of loss.
    
    I require your response to arrive with me within 14 days of the date of this letter.
    
    Yours faithfully

Should I refer to this as a Part 18 request?

Thank you all.

Coupon-mad

A full breakdown of your charge for pre-estimate of loss.

Nonono, where did that old chestnut come from?

KeithP

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

Should I refer to this as a Part 18 request?

No.

Part 18 is not applicable to Small Claims.

RichieBoy56

Can someone take a look at the Claim Form, in particular the signature.
It's signed by Jake Burgess but it doesn't state VCS beneath his name, just an address.
Is there anything wrong with this?

https://s20.postimg.cc/6a8vblty1/Particulars_of_Claim_Redacted_Page_2.jpg[/img][/url]

KeithP

No .

RichieBoy56

Thanks KeithP.

RichieBoy56

OK so it's Defence time. Here is my first draft below.

I am XXX, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I was neither driver nor passenger in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant who abuses the Small Claims Court process, by incorporating it into their business plan, to intimidate the general public into paying their unfounded claims.


I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. It is denied that the Defendant was the Driver of said vehicle on the date and time of the alleged incident. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2. The Defendant has a witness who will swear that the Defendant was not the Driver of the vehicle reg. xxxxxx on the date and time of the alleged incident. The Defendant avers that this is sufficient to override any assumption by the Claimant that the Defendant was the Driver.
3. The signage on the site, at the date of the alleged incident, was misleading, sparse, non-compliant with the International Parking Community Code of Practice and was insufficient to provide a contract with the driver. The fact that the signage at this site has recently been upgraded is an indication that the signage at the site on the day of the alleged infringement was inadequate/non-compliant.
4. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.
5. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
6. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
7. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
8. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
9. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
10. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
11. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

Your valued comments would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Remove this, as they do not have to be the landowner and do not have to prove loss (we already explained that to you):

6. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.

Replace it with a typical point distinguishing the case from the Beavis case, a defence point easily found by searching the forum for Beavis distinguished.

and IamEmanresu told you something to include in your defence, and you didn't:

Yes but reference the court's overriding objective instead and ask for the details that are missing such as details of the actual breach they are claiming and the legitimate interest they claim to protect.

Reference it in your defence and ask that the Claimant be sanctioned if they do not reply in a reasonable time frame.

RichieBoy56

Thanks C-m. I have delete the old item 6 and added the bold.

I am XXX, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I was neither driver nor passenger in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant who abuses the Small Claims Court process, by incorporating it into their business plan, to intimidate the general public into paying their unfounded claims.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

I am XXX, the defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I was neither driver nor passenger in the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident.

The Claimant is known to be a serial litigant who abuses the Small Claims Court process, by incorporating it into their business plan, to intimidate the general public into paying their unfounded claims.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

• It is denied that the Defendant was the Driver of said vehicle on the date and time of the alleged incident. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
• The Defendant has a witness who will swear that the Defendant was not the Driver of the vehicle reg. xxxxxx on the date and time of the alleged incident. The Defendant avers that this is sufficient to override any assumption by the Claimant that the Defendant was the Driver.
• The signage on the site, at the date of the alleged incident, was misleading, sparse, non-compliant with the International Parking Community Code of Practice and was insufficient to provide a contract with the driver. The fact that the signage at this site has recently been upgraded is an indication that the signage at the site on the day of the alleged infringement was inadequate/non-compliant.
• The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the un-evidenced allegations in the Particulars.
• The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
• This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage 'contract', none of this applies in this material case.
• The Claimant has not provided details of the actual breach of contract they are claiming and the legitimate interest they claim that they are protecting that allows them to suspend the penalty rule.
• The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.
• The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £100 to £160. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
• The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
• The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
• The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

Should I add a comment that the Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the claim as it has no prospect of success?