VCS Permit only private land Charge notice now at court stage

AGincourt007

Greetings

I am the registered keeper of a car that received a PCN in which VCS have now issued court proceedings. On the day of the PCN I was not the driver but I obviously do know who the driver was,. I have rightly or wrongly ignored all correspondence from VCS until the court papers arrived and I have done the AOS online to defend fully. I do not have any contact with the driver anymore.
The particulars of claim is for breach of contract in respect of the terms and conditions set on private land. It also states - At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver of the vehicle identified.
I have at no stage told VCS that I was not the driver.
How do I set out my defense. Do I put my name on the defence statement? ie the defendant? Do I have to identify the driver?
Thank you

Redx

look at other recent defences posted in other court case threads on here, but start with post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread near the top of this forum

ensure the AOS has been done online

then draft your defence by adapting a recent one, then post it on here for critique

hte name of the person responding is on the MCOL that was received

NO , you do not have to name the driver, nor is it a good idea due to POFA2012 protecting the keeper

edit post #1 and remove any hint of who was driving , parking companies read these forums

Coupon-mad

You need to read the NEWBIES THREAD, which asks everyone to read it first. Example defences, including one or two about VCS or Excel parking, are there.

Show us your draft.

Also read other VCS claim threads, by searching the forum for those words.

The_Slithy_Tove

VCS aren't very good at getting POFA right, even if they try to make the claim under that Act at all. So No Keeper Liability is likely to play a strong part of your defence.

Are they claiming against the keeper? Or making an assumption? Did the original PCN claim they could go after the keeper under POFA? Does the notice conform to POFA?

Redx

edit post #1 to state that you have no contact with THE DRIVER anymore

AGincourt007

I have the county court claim form and VCS have sent me particulars of claim with their statement of truth signed by Mr Burgess (with some letters after his name stating he is a legal executive)
I have no other correspondence. I do remember receiving NTK and LBC (all shredded)

POC mentions 'The claimant manages a parking scheme and regularly inspects the development in accordance with their appointment. The claimants role is to erect signs within the development explaining the T+C's.
It goes on - a charge notice of £160 sum claimed arising from the above vehicle as to which the defendant is responsible for either as the driver and/or the registered keeper. The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere T+C's of entering private land. The terms and conditions are displayed in prominent positions around the development and ought to have been known by any motorists or to an objective observer who would consider that someone has had the opportunity to have read them but have chosen not to read them.

£100 'Charge notice'
plus £60 debt collection fee
and £25 court fee

Redx

so read that post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, and a few other recent VCS or EXCEL court case threads

make sure you have done the AOS online as explained in that NEWBIES post

then show us your draft DEFENCE based on adapting one of the recent ones you have read

post #1 looks ok now

and I see Jake prepared the papers for the claimant

bear in mind he prepared them against Lamilad and Lamilad won a few times as he was not the driver and EXCEL (or VCS) usually fail the POFA2012 test so as KEEPER you are not liable, so read his threads and posts too , plus his transcript etc from parking pranksters site

AGincourt007

Will do! I know the place well where the driver received the PCN. There are signs on the wall, should my defence mention anything about the signs? To be honest they are the standard signs that we all see a lot of and the £100 charge is written in larger broad black within a red background ( of smaller letters)
Obviously the signs are much clearer to read when stood in front of them, but whilst in a car you would be hard pressed to read them.
Also this Mr Jake Burgess( A.CILEx) fella, I note you mention he has prepared the papers. Is this good or bad?

Redx

base your defence on others that are similar including the LAMILAD ones from a couple of years ago

include anything and everything that bolsters your defence

JB lost against Lamilad because Mr L boned up on this topic and as he wasnt the driver and EXCEL failed POFA2012 he won every time as he was the KEEPER, so if you mirror what he did its bad for JB , perhaps deja vu ? lol

as for mentioning JB, it shows its come from "in house" and not been farmed out to BW LEGAL, thats all

so the claimant is conducting the claim, like against Lamilad, and not some solicitors on their behalf

your defence should include issues about contracts , signage , POFA2012 , and anything else that can be included , WITHOUT BEING WAR AND PEACE !

AGincourt007

Right then, after a quick browse, here goes - my first draft. I welcome any corrections including anything that needs to be deleted/added.

DEFENCE

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the parking of a xxxxxxxxxxxx motor vehicle registration number xxxx xxx that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice (OR a Charge Notice as mentioned in the particulars of the claim) by the
Claimant.


2. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant;s case.


3. I deny any liability in respect of the claim.


3. In his Particulars of Claim the Claimant fails to disclose the head or heads of action in which these proceedings are based and in any event no cause is disclosed that has a realistic prospect of success. Furthermore the lack of detail prevents my being able to respond in more detail.


4. The Claimant is a well-funded company with a dedicated legal staff and is a serial litigator. I submit that his issuing Particulars of Claim lacking in usable detail or that do not disclose a clear cause of action is not only remiss but appears to indicate a Cut and Paste approach to the issuing of proceedings. I further submit that this demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and little concern for the Claimant's duties in supporting the court to achieve the overriding objectives.


5. Additionally such vague Particulars leave Defendants to respond to what are at best vague details.


6. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered KEEPER of the above vehicle at the time of the alleged event it is averred that the Defendant was not the DRIVER at the relevant time and the Claimant is put to strict proof in this respect.


7. It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to support this claim.



8. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges (or a Charge Notice as mentioned in the particulars of this current claim) and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.



9. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.



10. If it is so pleaded before seeking to rely on the KEEPER liability provisions of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act the Claimant must demonstrate that there was a relevant obligation; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort. The Claimant is put to strict proof that such a relevant obligation existed.



11. In the absence of strict proof as to the existence, or otherwise, of a relevant obligation the court is invited to strike the matter out.



12. On the other hand it is believed that the Claimant may seek to rely on a rather unique interpretation of the judgement in Elliott v Loake and endeavour to persuade the court that the case created a precedent amounting to a presumption that the registered KEEPER is the DRIVER where no other evidence or admission exists and thereby prove his allegations.



13. I submit that this interpretation actually represents a very considerable reworking of the case and does not fairly convey the findings.



14. The reality is that no such precedent was created and that Mr Loake was found guilty due to a criminal matter and on a surfeit of evidence (including forensic evidence) of being the DRIVER at the time of a road traffic accident which he had previously lied to the police about. Crucially it was this evidence that proved the case and identity of the DRIVER therefore not simply on a balance of probabilities as applies in the instant matter.



15. If the court is minded to accept that the Claimant has standing then I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient to the DRIVER in terms of their distribution, visability (especially when seated inside a motor vehicle) and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time.



16. I further submit that such is the complexity and density of the text on the Claimants signs that the most onerous term ; the £100 parking charge notice ; is buried amongst a mass of small print and does not even begin to comply with Denning MR Red Hand Rule.


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


18. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all his assertions.

19. In the above circumstances I respectfully ask that the court dismiss the claim.


Statement of Truth:

I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed XX XXXXX

Redx

this forum has a problem with certain punctuation marks that cause the errors you see in the above draft , like single apostrophes , so it needs editing , for clarity

some apple devices also cause it with "smart punctuation", so turn that off if using an apple device

also , its DEFENCE only, not STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

and it should have a statement of truth at the very bottom too , see other recent defences for examples of these