Parking Charge Notice - myparkingcharge.co.uk

Plantlover66

KeithP wrote: »

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 22nd January, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th February 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.

After filing your Defence, there is more to do...

1. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
2. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.
3. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
4. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

Much appreciated Keith. Do you have any feedback regarding my first draft? I believed I've covered everything but have seen some very lengthy defences in the forums and not sure if I've given enough information to have my case dismissed. Also, do have you any advice regarding the other point I mentioned in my previous post regarding the signage changing?

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

One thing I haven't included in my draft is the fact that all signage at the car park has now changed, meaning that the driving spot I parked in and initially got a ticket for is now a pay and display part of the car park meaning I'd not get a ticket if I was to park there now. Is it worth me including this in the defence somewhere?

Yes.

State that as a fact, and suggest that the Defendant has the reasonable belief that this must have been the landowner's intention for that area all along; thus there is an absence of the compelling commercial justification and/or legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, fro being struck out as offending against the penalty rule.

Then another point:

Even if the Claimant is able to show that the above contention was not the case, the claim still fails because the signs and lines were not prominent and transparent enough to show drivers that certain bays were apparently not 'pay & display' within this (advertised on the entrance signs and other notices) primarily pay & display car park. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of badly marked bays which most favours the consumer must prevail, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this means that these bay markings (or lack of) would be interpreted as unfair 'terms' and/or 'notices'.

Le_Kirk

3. The claimant has insufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name.

This sentence makes no sense. If you search the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and find the links to the 17 pre-written defences you will find the correct paragraph beginning "The claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest...….…….." Be warned that one (or more) of them has (or had) a typo in the spelling making it porpiatary (or similar)

Plantlover66

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes.

State that as a fact, and suggest that the Defendant has the reasonable belief that this must have been the landowner's intention for that area all along; thus there is an absence of the compelling commercial justification and/or legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, fro being struck out as offending against the penalty rule.

Then another point:

Even if the Claimant is able to show that the above contention was not the case, the claim still fails because the signs and lines were not prominent and transparent enough to show drivers that certain bays were apparently not 'pay & display' within this (advertised on the entrance signs and other notices) primarily pay & display car park. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of badly marked bays which most favours the consumer must prevail, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this means that these bay markings (or lack of) would be interpreted as unfair 'terms' and/or 'notices'.

Thanks Coupon-man, you've been a great help by wording my point. My thoughts are that VCS had no right to make the bottom of the car park their private land which is why the signs have no been changed but it's been impossible to find anything on the matter online. I'll be sure to add these points in.

Plantlover66

Le_Kirk wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense. If you search the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and find the links to the 17 pre-written defences you will find the correct paragraph beginning "The claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest...….…….." Be warned that one (or more) of them has (or had) a typo in the spelling making it porpiatary (or similar)

Thanks for taking time to respond LeKirk, I did have a read of those defences but will be sure to look over this again and amend my wording accordingly.

Plantlover66

I've rejigged my defence slightly to include the additional point regarding the changing pod the parking signs and amended the order to read a bit better. I believe I've covered everything but interested to hear if you guys think I've covered everything enough to get my point across and present a strong defence? Let me know what you guys think and thanks again for your feedback and thoughts:

DEFENCE

Claim No: XXXXXXX

Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Ltd 

Defendant: Miss XXXXXXXX

 

1.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the incident on the 22nd December 2017.  

1.1.   The claim relates to an alleged debt which has come about due to an alleged breach of contract set on private land within the Crown Street Car Park, Leeds.

1.2.   The Defendant purchased and displayed a valid ‘pay & display’ ticket on the dashboard of the vehicle covering all time spent within the car park.

1.3.   There was no overstay nor any mischief to deter, nor was there any misuse of a valuable parking space by the Driver, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and was certainly not 'unauthorised'.

2.     The particulars of claim state that the driver of the vehicle parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage. 

2.1.   It is denied that the Claimant’s signage sets out the terms and conditions in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. 

2.2.   There is no clear signage displayed within the arches where the defendant was parked and supposedly breached the claimant’s terms. Signage within the car park was not situated adequately and was of a height that could not be viewed from a small passing vehicle such as the defendant’s, especially since the contractual terms were set out in an inadequate and tiny font. 

 

3.     Signage within the car park has been amended and currently states that the private land where the Defendant allegedly breached the terms and conditions is now being used as ‘extra spaces’ for ‘valid pay & display ticket holders’ as well as ‘permit holders’.

 

3.1.   The Defendant has the reasonable belief that this must have been the landowner's intention for that area all along; thus there is an absence of the compelling commercial justification and/or legitimate interest that saved the parking charge in the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, for being struck out as offending against the penalty rule.

 

3.2.   Even if the Claimant is able to show that the above contention was not the case, the claim still fails because the signs and lines were not prominent and transparent enough to show drivers that certain bays were apparently not 'pay & display' within this (advertised on the entrance signs and other notices) primarily pay & display car park. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of badly marked bays which most favours the consumer must prevail, and under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 this means that these bay markings (or lack of) would be interpreted as unfair 'terms' and/or 'notices’.

 

3.3.   No authority from the landowner to the Claimant has been sent to the Defendant confirming the legality of the claim and charges. In the absence of strict proof of the landowner’s authority I submit that the Claimant has no grounds for a case at all and invite the court to strike out the claim.

 

3.4.   The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient 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. 

 

4.     The Defendant strongly believes that the claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the defendant contracted to pay, this additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 (5) 

4.1.   Furthermore, with no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant's claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail.

Considering all of the statements above, I therefore respectfully ask the court to dismiss all action against the defendant.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
02/02/2020

 

nosferatu1001

So youre happy to tell them who the driver was? As you give a very good clue at 1.2
Use SIMPLE numbering. No 1.1, 1.2. Just 1, 2, 3 etc. 
WHat is the actual allegation> AS I have no clue from reading that what conduct by the driver supposedly gave rise to *anything*. I have no idea whatsoever, as you do not simply and easily state it. 

Plantlover66

nosferatu1001 said:

So youre happy to tell them who the driver was? As you give a very good clue at 1.2
Use SIMPLE numbering. No 1.1, 1.2. Just 1, 2, 3 etc. 
WHat is the actual allegation> AS I have no clue from reading that what conduct by the driver supposedly gave rise to *anything*. I have no idea whatsoever, as you do not simply and easily state it. 

Well they know who the driver is because I stupidly submitted an appeal on their website right after the incident occurred in a panicked state, admitting that I was the driver. It seemed silly to say I wasn't now as I'd just look like a liar? Or do you mean I should make it more ambiguous such as "a valid ‘pay & display’ ticket was purchased and displayed on the dashboard of the vehicle covering all time spent within the car park".

Thanks for the feedback, I'll ensure that I change the numbering system I've used. 

Sorry, in regards to your last point, are you asking me why the claim has been brought against me in the first place? If so, I entered a pay & display car park, paid for my ticket and parked at the bottom of the car park in some arches which were supposedly private land. Should I be breaking the whole situation down and walking through it in my defence?

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. 

Plantlover66

Sorry to post again...just wondering if anybody has any further feedback regarding my defence before I email over this weekend. 
@nosferatu1001 I'd love for you expand upon what you said so that I can make the correct amends too.

Thanks again guys! 

Plantlover66

I also recently read about some more VCS Ltd cases. In one case the defendent won but she mentioned that in hindsight she wishes she would've got her hands on the contract between the landowner and VCS Ltd. Can anybody explain or link me to a post which may explain how I'd go about retrieving this? I've done a search using the land registry search linked from the government website but it's not returning any results.