VCS Ltd - County Court Claim - DEFENCE HELP

lanethomp

Claim form - Simon Renshaw Smith
Particulars of Claim - Jake Burgess
Witness Statement - Yasmeen Couser


If none of the above turn up (ie. they send a 4th person), is there recourse?


Notably none of the evidence in the claimants bundle is provided by the VCS operative nor the client/landowner. Is this something to make mention of on the day?

lanethomp

Many thanks all. Truly appreciate all the help provided. VERY nervous now actually. I've put a v brief skeleton together to answer the key points raised by the claimant. Hope it's not too difficult to read. The numbers relate to the paragraphs in the claimants bundle. I've summarised some of what the say. I've put an 'answer' or 'A' below each point

Between:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
V
Mr X (Defendant)

______________________________________________

SKELETON ARGUMENT
______________________________________________

18. 19. And 20.
All about the fact that a permit was not displayed when the operative issued the PCN.

Answer: The Client/landowner supplies permits. The Defendant cannot display a permit until provided with one. It should be acknowledged that this is the case, and indeed was acknowledged by VCS operative on the day of events. Immediately on receipt of the permit, the Defendant displayed it in accordance with the Ts & Cs.

21. Provision of NTD

Answer: Not compliant (add more)

31. No escalation of appeal to IAS.

A: Due to naivety of the Defendant and the strong belief that the parking charge was absolutely refuted.

38. Signage

A: It is not denied that signage is displayed.
The signage states ‘AUTHORISED DELIVERY VEHICLES & PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY’
You can clearly see in the photographs taken by the VCS operative and included within the Claimant’s Court bundle on page 44 that the vehicle doors are open and the Defendant and colleagues are visible on the photographs LOADING AND UNLOADING in the service yard. You can also clearly see the skip for use.
The Defendant’s vehicle was authorised to deliver and load/unload. A parking permit was displayed immediately on receipt. The Defendant cannot control what time the permit was provided.


63. ‘…accepted by entering and leaving the vehicle at the site.’

A: The vehicle was NOT left at the site at any time. The registered keeper and driver were present at all times on the site loading and unloading.

64. The Claimant relies on ParkingEye v Beavis and submits that the predominant purpose of the parking charge was to deter motorists from misusing the car park and that the occupiers objective include the following:
a. the need to provide parking spaces for authorised vehicles
b. The related need to prevent misuse of the parking for purposes unconnected with the tenants’ business; and
c. income stream etc etc

A: The only objective which has been met here is c. the income stream.
The vehicle was both a. authorised to park there and b. connected with the tenants’ business!

65. the vehicle was observed parked in breach of the Ts and Cs of the car park by not displaying a valid permit. Thus, the Defendant became liable…

A: The Def does not deny that the vehicle was observed in this manner and subsequently discussed this with VCS operative who accepted the circumstances. The CLIENT had not yet issued the parking permit and therefore was in breach of the Ts and Cs of the contract held with VCS.

66. The Claimant had a legitimate interest in charging the Def, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The scheme in operation here is that the landowner authorises the Claimant to control access to the car park and to impose the agreed charges, with a view to managing the car park in the interests of the client and tenants.

A: The claimant is not authorised to CONTROL access to the car park. The Ts and Cs of the contract state that the client (landowner) issues the parking permits. The Claimant only has authority to inspect the car park and issue PCNs.

The Claimant is put to strict proof.

68. ParkingEye v Beavis – (cut down), 69. And 70
Promissory estoppel does not apply.
by reading the signage the Def accepted the terms of the contract and if he did not do so should have left the site.
A: If the Def left the site this would have been to the serious detriment of the client/landowner. The Def was on the site by benefit of the client/landowner. Abortive costs would have been submitted to the client/landowner in this case.

onlyfoolsandparking

I get what people say about DJ bingo but I don't believe you have anything to be nervous about, seriously!!


Your defence is well crafted, well argued and bang on point, I think you will blow these scammers out of the court room and the Judge is going to be impressed at how professionally you have presented this case to him/her.

lanethomp

onlyfoolsandparking wrote: »

Great work, I can feel good things happening on Tuesday, the effort you have shown in dealing with these rat scammers is a credit to you and something newbies should take a good long hard look at.


I could be wrong here but I think loss of earnings is capped at £95 and I'm not confident with the £150 payment for distress, they usually get kicked out by Judge however your evidence/research could easily read much more than 2 hours, I'm sure you have spent a lot more than 2 hours dealing with this?? and I'm sure I read somewhere a LIP claiming about 40 hours at the allowed rate of £19 per hour, just a thought, others will know better than me.

Thanks and noted. The loss of earnings is evidenced in the bundle - I've attached an invoice showing the hourly rate my father usually charges. I got the two hour limit for research time from a post on here somewhere. I appreciate the 'distress' one is questionable, unsure now that I've included as part of my bundle if I can rework it?

Coupon-mad

Tips for court:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74886862#Comment_74886862

HTH

bargepole

Looks like you could get one of four Judges, and may be waiting around for quite some time:

In the County Court at Manchester
Tuesday 9 October 2018
Before District Judge Haigh
Court 25 - Level 5

Start Time
Case Details

Small Claims ( with District Judge Davies, Deputy District Judge Manley & Deputy District Judge Masheder)

ALL HEARINGS IN PUBLIC UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED

10:00 AM
003MC632 Quinag Ltd -v- Control Group International 2 hours

10:00 AM
E0GF73P6 Minster Baywatch -v- Andrew 2 hours

10:00 AM
E0QZ04G3 Open Forum Events -v- Chrysalis CCM Ltd 2 hours (and Application to stay)

10:00 AM
E0QZ52Q3 QualityOffer -v- Latham 2 hours

10:00 AM
E1FC34F5 Parkingeye -v- Kidiwala 2 hours

10:00 AM
E27YX632 Peninsula Business Services Ltd -v- Lakshmi Traders Ltd 2 hours

10:00 AM
E2QZ41Q8 Wheatcroft -v- Radcliffe ELH 2 hours

10:00 AM
E2QZ56J2 Vehicle Control Services -v- T******* 2 hours

10:00 AM
E3QZ89H8 Holiday Luxury Ltd -v- Caylakli 2 horus

10:00 AM
E56YJ516 Peszel -v- UK Insurance Ltd 2 hours

lanethomp

Thanks for this - looks like at least two more of these are parking related...

I’ve been told if we get to the usher first we may be seen first? We are aiming To be there for 9am.

Do I only address the judge ie. I don’t speak to the claimant once in court?

nosferatu1001

You can speak to them as yo uwill likely want to ask them about the numerous failings of their bundle.

bargepole

lanethomp wrote: »

Thanks for this - looks like at least two more of these are parking related...

I’ve been told if we get to the usher first we may be seen first? We are aiming To be there for 9am.

Do I only address the judge ie. I don’t speak to the claimant once in court?

Some courts take the cases in the order they are on the list, others go by who has turned up and is ready first.

I was in one court with a crowded list like this, and as both sides were present and ready, the Judge called us in at 9:30 to get a head start on the day.

You should only address remarks to the Judge. If the rep for the other side says something you disagree with, make a note, and refer to it when it's your turn.

lanethomp

Urgent advice needed. Just reviewing documents on the way to court. We’ve put the wrong date into my fathers WS by mistake. It’s about a week clear of the actual day of incident.

Error made as We picked up the date from the NTK, picked up ‘issue date’ of the NTK rather than ‘contravention date’

Should we do anything?