Parking Change Notice (Pictures Attached)

Coupon-mad

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date on a public road, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.

2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gate and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'.

5.1. Vehicle registration XXXX has not entered past the gate and therefore is not entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

5.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient [STRIKE]propietary[/STRIKE] proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.


(statement of truth and signature and date go here)

YDARB

Thank you. Much appreciated

YDARB

Thank you . Much appreciated

Coupon-mad

I think in VCS cases, the defence should attack the assertion in the Particulars, that they issued a 'Charge Notice' when they actually did not.

First time I've tried that in a defence but well worth bunging in, even though VCS do not rely on the POFA, it still gives the Judge food for thought as to the lack of certainty of a 'charge'.

YDARB

Got my DQ's yesterday. Going to fill it in as advised in another thread.

A1 = NO to mediation (they want the whole amount, you want to pay them nothing, so no scope for mediation. This will not go against you)
B = fill in all the details, name, address, etc
C1 = YES to small claims track – this is the limited costs track for claims up to £10,000 in value
D1 = name of your local County Court – unless you are a Ltd company, the case files will be transferred there
D2 = NO to expert evidence (this relates to medical negligence cases and suchlike)
D3 = 1 witness (that’s you) (or more if you are going to get another person to provide a statement)
D4 = Put down the dates of any pre-booked holidays, NO to interpreter (unless you need one).

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed.

Come back in good time for Witness Statement and evidence stage once you know your dates from your local court. Which is your nearest county court?

YDARB

Liverpool Civil and Family Court

Coupon-mad

Ouch, that is not a great court for a PPC case, as far as Judges are concerned. Your WS and evidence will have to be on point and your position clear!

KeithP

You would be wise to remove your Claim Number from your most recent post.
It is enough to uniquely identify you and your incident to anyone.


Also, check the spelling of the Claimant's name.

Castle

You have written a defence statement; not a witness statement.