PCN for showing expired Blue Badge in error

Snakes_Belly

Have you written to your MP? I did but quite far down the line. She did offer to help me but I don't really know what she could have done as my court case was very imminent. Your MP may be able to intervene in your case.

I don't see how the Beavis case applies in your case as there is no commercial justification for the £100.00 claim. My understanding that this car park is free to rail users with no time restrictions. You have a rail ticket. Then there is the question of the £60.00 that they have added to the claim.

Have a good look at the signage and how clear it is. Were you aware from the signage that by accidentally using the out of date badge that you were entering into a contract where you would be liable for £100.00 charge? I doubt it.

There is also the doctrine of de-minimis. This is a free car park to rail users (which you are). You have a valid disabled badge, how have you disadvantaged anyone other than to create a small amount of administration for a PPC? This does not justify a court claim of £160.00 +.I am not an expert but I would include de-minimis.

These are just a couple of points and not comprehensive and I am sure that there are more.

Snakes_Belly

Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17

This was a case won on the doctrine of De Minimis. Not quite the same scenario but same principle.

The concept behind De Minimis is that "the law does not concern itself with trifles." So if the letter of a contract is broken, but the spirit is not and no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply.

Taken from the Prankster's blog.

Coupon-mad

I have now received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court with an Issue Date of 7 May signed by Simon Renshaw-Smith as the claimant. It seems I have until Tuesday 28th May to complete the acknowledgment of service form via MCL and until Monday 10th June to file my defence.

Do the POC on the left say POC to follow within 14 days?

If so then it's like I hope you will have seen in the other VCS case I've replied on today (other VCS claim threads are your bible for info, plus the NEWBIES thread post #2).

We read all posts. You only need to read VCS & Excel ones for your research, much easier!

Have you done the AOS?

KeithP

claire07 wrote: »

I have now received a Claim Form from Northampton County Court with an Issue Date of 7 May signed by Simon Renshaw-Smith as the claimant. It seems I have until Tuesday 28th May to complete the acknowledgment of service form via MCL and until Monday 10th June to file my defence.

Your target dates are right, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 28th May 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 file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a whole month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the 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 "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep 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.

claire07

Many thanks for all the suggestions and I will try to answer the questions. It has been a chaotic weekend so I will do the AOS and SAR reminder on Monday when I can have some quiet time to do it properly and not make a mistake.

I realise the train company may feel it is the equivalent of not buying a rail ticket but the penalty for that would have been £20 not £185 which is quite a difference.

I have contacted the local MP.

The doctrine of de-minimis is interesting and I will look into that plus the bay I parked in just said disabled parking only and the signage could be considered confusing.

The POC do not say anything about details following in 14 days - they just state the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.

Snakes_Belly

I can understand the initial ticketing because people do abuse the blue badge system. Upon appeal with evidence of your current badge VCS should have cancelled the charge.

The de minimis is worth a mention because how have you disadvantaged anyone? It's a free car park for rail users. You have not taken a disabled space as an able bodied person.

You will need to differentiate your case from the Beavis case which was also a free car park. The car park in the Beavis case was free for a certain period (short stay), This was to enable a regular turnover of shoppers to the retail park. In your case the car park was for the benefit of commuters using rail (long stay) . In Beavis retailers and restaurants could have been disadvantaged if visitors had overstayed or gone off site. In your case no one has been disadvantaged. .

VCS will state that you entered into a contract which was formed by the signage upon entry to the car park and that you have breached the contract by not displaying a valid BB. To support their case they will cite certain cases that relate to signage and contract.

VCS may cite Thornton v Shoe Lane and Vine v Waltham Forest in their Witness Statement. Both these cases relate to signage as does the Beavis case.

In Shoe Lane the car park is a barrier car park where the terms and conditions are stated at the point of entry. A car would stop at the barrier. Not all car parks are like this.

The signage in the Beavis case was very clear. VCS's signage is often in very small font and contains a huge amount of detail.

The signage in the Vine case was obscured.

The_Deep

The signage in the Beavis case was very clear. VCS's signage is often in very small font and contains a huge amount of detail.

As is PE's, read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading

claire07

I have received a response to my SAR to Vehicle Control Services
and they have included the photograph of the sign saying Disabled Parking Only and my current Blue Badge.


I am probably over-thinking this but as the email sending the paperwork came from Excel (and ended up in my spam!) despite my request being to VCS and all the signs and physical paperwork naming VCS why would they do this and is it something I should query?

Snakes_Belly

In your rebuttal letter in response to their LBC have you asked for evidence of landowner authority? Ask for it again in your defence. If the signs are VCS and the contract is with Excel then they should not be able to sue you as VCS will not have landowner authority.

You should keep asking for this but they probably will not provide until their WS. By not providing this information they are not complying with the Protocol and are therefore not helping to narrow the issues.

They have been known to try to sue in one name when the contract was in another. From memory the Albert Street, Birmingham Car Park was an example of signs in one name and claim in another. There have been a number of cases about this car park.

If they fail to provide landowner authority a judge could throw out the case.

From memory Claxtome fought a fluttering ticket case on De Minimis. Claxtome fought three cases and they are worth a read.

Snakes_Belly

It is classed as unreasonable behaviour to not comply with the Protocol. If a Claimant takes a case to court knowing that they have not got authority from the landowner that is unreasonable behaviour and could impact on the costs paid to the defendant.