CCJ Claim Help - Vehicle Control Services

PugT

Hi all,

After reading many of the threads on PCNs within the forum I'm looking for a bit more advice on how the driver can set a defence out for a CCJ claim of £185 which the driver received yesterday, upon returning from holiday! The driver has submitted the online Acknowledgement of Service and has said theywill be defending the total amount.

Here's an overview of the PCN and how it came about:

Contravention Date and Time - 22/10/17 at 12:...
Contravention Reason - (34) Vehicle parked in a customer only car park/site and driver observed leaving premises.
Contravention place - A retail park. This retail park has two parts to it, a smaller part with 4/5 retail units on the left hand side and then across an access/service road (around 50 meters long) the larger side with 10+ retail units.

The drivers account of the events -

On the date above the driver turned left, off the main road on to the service/access road mentioned above and then left again into the smaller side of the retail park where the driver parked the vehicle in question. The space parked in was very close to the car park's entrance. The driver then crossed the service/access road and entered the first and only retail unit, Hobbycraft, off the service/access road. The driver has a receipt to prove this is what happened, which has the time etc on it.

Upon receiving the PCN the driver immediately appealed to the company issuing the PCN stating this and providing a copy of the receipt to which they responded stating they are unable to accept the appeal due to my failure in following the T&Cs of the car park and it's use is for customers only. The letter also contained photographs of the car with the PCN but no picture of the driver leaving! The driver has the response letter they sent if more details are needed.

After the incident the driver went back to the said car park (stayed in the car) and looked at the signs etc. The driver noticed the usual, very small writing, two or three signs in the whole car park and then that the name of the smaller side of the retail park is different to the larger side which I went into.

The driver hassince then ignored DCA letters etc until now.

The drivers thoughts/questions are:

Do they have a defence based on the signs not been clear? E.g. Signs don't state that the car park is only for the smaller side retail park customers and not the larger side?
Do they argue they have no photos of the driver leaving the car park in question or entering any of the shops on the smaller side as well as Hobbycraft, to browse perhaps?!
Does the driver have a defence at all?

Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Quentin

Assuming that you have not revealed who was driving already to the PPC you need to edit your post to remove details of who was driving

The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you

You now need to concentrate on #2 in the newbies FAQ thread which advises on Court claims right through from the lbcca to the hearing

Construct your defence using the advice and links there and post it here for comments before sending it

Redx

TO ADD TO THE ABOVE


you are constructing a DEFENCE (with the letter C , not S)


a defence states why the POC are disputed and gives the legal arguments to back up the defendants decision to fight the case


the WS comes much later, which is what your "story" is about, so save all that info for the WS and evidence stage later in the process


your DEFENCE needs to tell the judge why the POC fail and why the defendant is not liable in legal terms (arguments)


it is NOT the time to be telling the "story"


see recent 2018 defences in other recent threads and post #2 of that NEWBIES FAQ thread , but first ensure you have done the AOS by logging into the MCOL website

KeithP

What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?

PugT

Thank you for your swift replies and apologies for any typos.

The Claim Issue Date was 23rd of this month.

When the first PCN letter came through I notified VCS who was driving and also in my appeal letter. Since then all correspondence has been addressed to myself including the CCJ claim. Should I amend the thread still?

I have had a read of several examples from the Newbie thread and felt overwhelmed as to which example would help my defence the most so I shall draft and post one on here shortly, ready for further advice.

Many thanks again.

KeithP

PugT wrote: »

The Claim Issue Date was 23rd of this month.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd August and the Acknowledgement of Service having been done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 25th September 2018 to file your Defence.

That's well over three weeks to hone your Defence to perfection, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print the Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not, you should chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for the Directions Questionnaire and come back here.

Coupon-mad

When the first PCN letter came through I notified VCS who was driving and also in my appeal letter. Since then all correspondence has been addressed to myself including the CCJ claim.

Interesting. Did you keep proof of that, and did you get an acknowledgement of that contact?

Did you give the driver's full name and postal address?

If they had the name and address of the driver from you (and you know that had that info, that it was received) they have no reason to still be processing your data, and you can issue a counter claim for £25 fee.

Worth considering. A counter claim for, say, a round £500 for harassment and data misuse, citing your (now to do urgently!) formal complaint made to the ICO and the POFA Schedule 4 rules about having named the driver, and that the keeper cannot then be pursued at all in law.

You must quickly lodge a decent, detailed complaint to the ICO, using their PDF complaint form, showing the ICO proof that you named the driver and gave their address, and showing proof that this company is trying to sue you despite there being no 'keeper liability' possible under the POFA once the parking firm know the name and address of who was driving. Thus, processing your data and dragging you to court is illegal and you want the ICO to consider serious sanctions against the parking firm.

You may have to talk the ICO through Schedule 4 as they don't ''get it'' like we do.

PugT

Hi everyone,

Ok so I've read lots of other draft defences and taken elements of these to produce my first draft. I am educated and by no means stupid but I do feel like some of the information I'm finding, is a little tricky to absorb so apologies if parts of my draft defence make no sense! Any expert help would be great.

Draft Defence

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and not the registered keeper of vehicle xxx but the insured driver of the vehicle relating to the claim.

I deny I am liable for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds:

1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol (as outlined in the new Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims, 1 October 2017) 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. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of ‘Robo Claims’. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

b. The Schedule of Information is sparse of detailed information.

c. 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. Furthermore, the Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction and Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to take stock, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:

i. Early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute

ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure

iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and

iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.

d. The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action and having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted

2. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 costs were incurred.The Defendant believes that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £185.00 minus the court costs of £25.00. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

3. 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. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage none of this applies in this material case.

4. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage 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 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. It is believed the signage was not lit 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 from by an authorised party using the premises as intended
iii. 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
iv. The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
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 font size, lighting or positioning
ii. The sum pursued exceeds £100
iii. There is/was no compliant landowner contract
iv. Signage off the main road does not exists specifying which car park belongs to which retail units which would leave a drive to believe that both car parks are for the use of all retail units. The car park in question is for a smaller side of the retail park under the name of Markham Retail Park the larger side is under the name of Riverside… which contains the shop the driver went into and has proof of purchase. This was used in the appeal letter at the time to no avail! The driver also has have photographs/google images to show if needed. Does this point help?
v. Furthermore, the defendant has evidence that the signage has been altered since the alleged contravention, between the following dates 22.10.17 - 21.12.17, thus further suggesting that the signage at the time of the contravention was inadequate and therefore needed replacing. Is this the right place for this and would it help?

5. No standing this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
It is believed Civil Enforcement Ltd 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant sent a letter claiming to be a final letter before court action, but then instead sent this to more debt collectors. As such the Claimants have artificially inflated the claim value by claiming to involve further debt collectors, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that all claimed costs were invoiced and paid.

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 23.08.18
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.


STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Xxx
Xxxx September 2018

Another question I have is it worth putting in somewhere that on the PCN letters VCS state the driver was observed leaving the site but they have failed to provide these photographs despite my request for them and instead they just sent pictures of the vehicle in question parked?

Any additions and feedback would be greatly appreciated. I feel like a fish out of water!

PugT

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Interesting. Did you keep proof of that, and did you get an acknowledgement of that contact?

Did you give the driver's full name and postal address?

If they had the name and address of the driver from you (and you know that had that info, that it was received) they have no reason to still be processing your data, and you can issue a counter claim for £25 fee.

Worth considering. A counter claim for, say, a round £500 for harassment and data misuse, citing your (now to do urgently!) formal complaint made to the ICO and the POFA Schedule 4 rules about having named the driver, and that the keeper cannot then be pursued at all in law.

You must quickly lodge a decent, detailed complaint to the ICO, using their PDF complaint form, showing the ICO proof that you named the driver and gave their address, and showing proof that this company is trying to sue you despite there being no 'keeper liability' possible under the POFA once the parking firm know the name and address of who was driving. Thus, processing your data and dragging you to court is illegal and you want the ICO to consider serious sanctions against the parking firm.

You may have to talk the ICO through Schedule 4 as they don't ''get it'' like we do.

They are aware of the driver and all contact has been made to the driver since the original PCN.

KeithP

PugT wrote: »

They are aware of the driver and all contact has been made to the driver since the original PCN.

Did you read that post you just quoted?
There is only one question in there and you have not answered it.
No comment on the rest of the guidance offered there?



In your Defence, what is this statement saying:

I am xxx, the defendant in this matter and not the registered keeper of vehicle xxx but an insured driver.

It tells the reader that the Defendant is not the Registered Keeper.
It does not tell the reader whether or not the Defendant is the driver.
I too could be an insured driver if my insurance policy allow me to drive other cars.

Le_Kirk

a. This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of ‘Robo Claims’. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

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

Where is point b