Response from VCS - advice please?

bdee83

Redx wrote: »

what is the DATE OF ISSUE on the form ?

The issue date is 04/02/19

KeithP

bdee83 wrote: »

The issue date is 04/02/19

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th February, you have until Monday 25th February to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should 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. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

bdee83

Thank you so much for your help, hugely appreciated!

bdee83

Afternoon all!
So i'm now at the Witness Statement stage and have till 7/6 to submit to my local court. Am I correct in thinking a witness statement is me describing the facts I have laid out in my defense?

This is the defense I submitted.. any pointers on my Witness Statement would be appreciated

CLAIM No: XXXXXX

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
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 BLAA BLAA, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date off 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 state that 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 broken signage is attached to a fence at knee level and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'. Additional signage at eye level can only be deemed as non-visible in the evidence supplied by the claimant due to being blocked by additional vehicles.
5.1 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.2 Since the date of the incident, the claimant has upgraded signage in this particular area indicating the signage in situ at the time of the incident was not adequate
5.3. 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.
5.4. 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.

5.5. 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 proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking 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 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name BDEE

Signature

Date TODAY

Le_Kirk

If you found that defence in the NEWBIE thread, go back there (post # 2) and keep scrolling down until you find: -

WITNESS STATEMENT EXAMPLES - AN EASY STAGE - YOUR 'STORY' AND EVIDENCE

A WS is simple, it expands on your defence and tells the story from your point of view, and it is vital because it includes your evidence exhibits such as photos of obscured/tiny font signs, any relevant letters, permit/copy of your lease, copy of your authority to park, etc.

Here's a WS example by legally-qualified regular poster, bargepole, in 2018:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74584727#Comment_74584727

Then keep scrolling and you will find more examples. You can also find more by searching the forum.

Coupon-mad

of which the Defendant is the registered keeper,

No you weren't!

Make sure your WS starts by setting the scene that you got an unfair PCN and appealed as hirer/lessee of the vehicle and wish to clarify that.

Snakes_Belly

Have you had their WS yet?

bdee83

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Have you had their WS yet?

No I've not received anything from them yet.. should I have?

Coupon-mad

You know the deadline for both parties - you told us!

So i'm now at the Witness Statement stage and have till 7/6 to submit to my local court.

Hence you WAIT till 24 hours before, in the hope of seeing their drivel first and being able to demolish it in your WS!

edwardo27

Hi BDEE, What happened with this? Im fighting same car park, same company. Each thread I search on this car park stops with no outcome.