Moneyclaim.gov.uk Claim form

madeye25

Hi all,

Last week my partner received a Claim Form dated 16 APR 2018.

There is a claim number beginning with an E letter and a password to access the site moneyclaim.gov.uk, it is for £185 the claimant is Vehicle Control Services Limited, S9 1XE.

Although the form is digitally signed by a Simon Renshaw-Smith.

The Court address is
County Court Bulk Centre
NN1 2LH

Included is an Admission Form (N9A), Defence and Counterclaim Form (N9B) and Acknowledgement of service.

Can anyone advise how I can handle this please? I guess I do need to respond now?

Coupon-mad

Did you miss NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST (before posting?).

See below, 2 clicks back. Do that now, get back to the first page. Read the top thread!

No thread discussion is worth our time spent (sorry) till people have read the relevant post there, which in your case is the second post, which is all about court defence stage.

We WILL help but only when you've read what the forum has for you, and done the AOS online.

madeye25

Thank you for response.


My partner was parked in a private car park (non council), didn't buy a ticket and received a parking fine.


I haven't reviewed any correspondence except this Claim Form - I am not sure she kept it but will check.


I have submitted the AoS so have another 14 days to prepare my claim and get my head around my defence, I will start the defence below if anyone could help that would be appreciated.

Le_Kirk

madeye25 wrote: »

I have submitted the AoS so have another 14 days to prepare my claim and get my head around my defence, I will start the defence below if anyone could help that would be appreciated.

See answer given in post #2. You've done the AOS, now comes the reading.

madeye25

Defence taken from another thread:

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: ___

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

Defence Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. I currently reside at ____.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 16/04/2018 by Vehicle Control Services Limited was notcorrectly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person but signed by (Claimant's Legal Representative);. **Not sure this is applicable, as there is a persons name signed, but there is no record of who he is**

2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

a) There was no compliant Letter before County Court Claim, under the Practice Direction.

b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

d) The Claim form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. **There are particulars of claim that are quite detailed**

e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

(i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
(ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
(iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
(iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
(v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
(vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
(vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict keeper liability provisions.

Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not as there was no clear, transparent information about how to obtain a permit either inside or outside the site) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper. They cannot pluck another sum from thin air and bolt that on as well when neither the signs, nor the NTK, nor the permit information mentioned a possible £185 for outstanding debt and damages. **what schedule is this, was this specific to another case?**

4. Not applicable - no admin costs added

5. 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. None of this applies in this material case.

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

a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.

b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.!

c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:

(i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
(ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
(iii) It is believed the signage and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
(iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
(v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.

d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:!
(i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the size, lighting or positioning.
(ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
(iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

7. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

8. No legitimate interest - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
This Claimant files serial claims regarding sites where they have lost the contract, known as revenge claims and it believed this is one such case. This is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.!

9. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

10. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

(a) Failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12th June 2017.

(b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Signed
Date

KeithP

Having done the Aos, you now have until 4pm on Monday 21 May to file a Defence.

The_Deep

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Coupon-mad

Between:

Civil Enforcement Limited v ___

Defence Statement

I am ___, the defendant in this matter and registered keeper of vehicle ___. [STRIKE]I currently reside at ____.[/STRIKE]

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:

1. The Claim Form issued on the 16/04/2018 by Vehicle Control Services Limited

I stopped reading at that point. Proof reading needed, by you first!

And remove your address, not needed in a defence:

I currently reside at ____.

madeye25

The bit you highlight is what I updated, this is the claim against my partner - I am confused what you mean.

Le_Kirk

madeye25 wrote: »

The bit you highlight is what I updated, this is the claim against my partner - I am confused what you mean.

In your defence you wrote Civil Enforcement Ltd but in your first post you put Vehicle Control Services.

Coupon-mad

No, in the draft DEFENCE both companies are mentioned, not sure how much clearer I can make it than quoting the defence and putting them in bold...