Acknowledgement of Service submitted in response to court claim Vehicle Control Services

Nico25

I received a CN for 2/11/17 at St Mary's Road Retail Park in Sheffield.

I was not up to date with current advice and so binned all letters I received as soon as I got them. I am not even sure what the contravention was.

Having received a court claim yesterday I have read all of the advice on here and have realised that I made a mistake by not responding. I have completed the acknowledgement of service online as per the guide.

I would like to submit a defense as soon as possible. What is the best course of action for me?

Many thanks in advance. I am very new to this and am a bit overwhelmed.

Quentin

You say you have read all the advice on here.

Then ask about submitting your defence!!

#2 in the FAQ covers Court claims right through from the lbcca to the hearing

Go through that post again, then construct your defence and post it here for comments before sending it

Nico25

Quentin wrote: »

You say you have read all the advice on here.

Then ask about submitting your defence!!

#2 in the FAQ covers Court claims right through from the lbcca to the hearing

Go through that post again, then construct your defence and post it here for comments before sending it

Apologies, I have created a thread because of the advice in the newbies thread: Urgently start your own thread - or please 'reply' with a court claim update on your existing thread if you already have an old one - and show us your own tailored draft defence and we'll assist on a case by case basis.

I am finding it difficult to construct a defense as I don't know what they are alleging the contravention is. Would your advice be to get in touch with the parking company to ask them to resubmit letters? Or is this a total no-go?

I think they are alleging an overstay?

Coupon-mad

Would your advice be to get in touch with the parking company to ask them to resubmit letters? Or is this a total no-go?

Send a SAR and ask specifically for all photos taken and all data and letters, including the PCN that they contend were sent.

They have to reply within 30 days to a SAR so email that NOW, today, so it starts from this week. Do it by email and post but NOT recorded/signed for...it's Friday for starters...!

What date is on the claim form, when was it filed?

Nico25

Thank you so much for your reply. What is an SAR? Is there a specific template I should use in my email to them? I will request this information today.

The issue date on the claim form is 29th Aug

Coupon-mad

Google SAR.

Or how about reading the thread about SARs and GDPR that is on the first few pages of this very board, right now. We really do expect people to read ALL threads they can, not just sit on their own, asking question after question, like it's something new.

Nico25

Thank you again. I am attempting this on my phone with a toddler. I have sent the Subject Access Request to vehicle control services. In the meantime I will attempt to draft a defense and post here for checking before I submit.

Quentin

You have plenty of time

Trying to navigate this section of the Mse forum is difficult by phone

Wait till you have time and can use a laptop or desktop

Coupon-mad

I would never try to use this forum on a phone, not even to read a thread!

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th August and the Acknowledgement of Service having been done in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's that's a whole month 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.

Nico25

Thank you again for all of the valuable help and support that you take the time to offer on this forum. I am pasting my defence below in the hope that someone will be able to look over it for me before I submit. I need to submit before 1st Oct and plan on using the method suggested by Keith P above.

To qualify, I am feeling massively out of my depth here and I am sure there will be things that I have missed/ written incorrectly. In addition, I now realise that I could have saved my self lots of worry if I'd have appealed/ responded to the correct parties in the tried and tested ways at the right times - hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Thanks in advance! Any help/ advice is very much appreciated!

COUNTY COURT Claim No.: XXXX
Between
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons:
1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from my vehicle having been parked on 2nd November 2017 in a free customer car park at XXXX. The alleged contravention is an overstay of 48 minutes, where parking is advertised as free for 2 hours.
2. The Defendant was an occupant of the car, but the Claimant is not entitled to demand that the driver is admitted. To protect that party from rogue parking firms (an industry exposed as 'deliberately deceptive', often choosing elderly or infirm people to pursue, and a 'disgrace to this Country' by MPs in a vociferous Parliamentary debate) the driver will not be named by the Defendant, a right positively enshrined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Preliminary matters:
3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) issued to the Defendant do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It just vaguely states “charge notice” which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract', so I have had to cover all eventualities in my defence and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.
4. The claimant failed to provide a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).
5. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers, and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something that the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.
In further support of there being a want of cause of action:
6. At the time of the alleged contravention the defendant was a breastfeeding mother with a 7 month old baby. During the defendant’s visit to the Retail Park, they were forced to return to the vehicle to breastfeed and change their baby. Breastfeeding mothers are protected under section 17 (4) of the Equalities Act 2010 (The reference in subsection (3) to treating a woman unfavourably because she has given birth includes, in particular, a reference to treating her unfavourably because she is breast-feeding.) Service providers MUST make a 'reasonable adjustment' of any arbitrary time limit, allowing for breastfeeding mothers, in anticipation of them needing to take longer than the remainder of the population at large. No such adjustment was made by the Claimant. In addition, an arbitrary time limit applying to all drivers/passengers cannot lawfully be used as an excuse to charge/penalise breastfeeding motorists/passengers, because this breaches the Equality Act 2010. A penalty charge for an 'overstay' is NOT a lawful claim against a person with 'protected characteristics'. A protected person cannot be charged for a reasonable adjustment; this would be illegal.
4. Upon receiving the claim, the Defendant contacted the customer services manager and store manager for XXXX at the Retail Park, both of whom expressed disappointment that the Claimant was suing their customers. The store manager sent an email on 15th September 2018 stating her wish that the unfair PCN be cancelled. The Claimant has not replied to this email.
5. Signage in the car park was inadequate. Signs could not be easily read and understood without the driver turning their head away from the direction of driving. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required. The Defendant denies liability for the charge because they did not enter into any contract with the Claimant because no contract was offered by the Claimant's signage.
6. The Notice to Keeper received by the defendant did not comply with PoFA: As the registered keeper, the Defendant submits that they were not afforded any method by which to appeal to the landowner or retail agent, nor any information about complaints procedures to the landowner or retail agent. If I could have appealed to POPLA or had been informed that the Retailer/landowner could deal with such complaints and cancel charges, I would have done so.
7. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum on a properly-served Notice to Keeper (NTK). The Claimant cannot hold a registered keeper liable. According to the Claimant’s response to the Defendant’s Subject Access Request, the request for keeper details was made on 6th December 2017, 35 days after the alleged contravention. This failed to comply with PoFA regulations which stipulate that where no Notice to Driver was issued, the creditor or its agent must have made their application for the keeper’s name and address to the DVLA no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked.
8. The claimant has not declared if the claim is against the keeper of driver of the vehicle; or provided any evidence of who the driver was. The event was so long ago, the Claimant is wasting the court's time with speculative claims that neither identify the driver nor clearly explain the cause of action.
9. In order to issue parking charges, and to pursue unpaid charges via litigation, the Claimant is required to have the written authority of the landowner, on whose behalf they are acting as an agent. No evidence of such authority has been supplied by the Claimant or their legal representatives, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of same, in the form of an un-redacted and contemporaneous contract, or chain of authority, from the landowner to the Claimant. This information was requested from the Claimant by the Defendant by email on 7th September 2018 to which no reply was received.
10. The Claimant has not provided any evidence of the car being parked for over 2 hours. They have only produced ANPR timestamps for entry to, and exit from, the car park; which indicate an overstay (of 48 minutes).The defendant was harassed and intimidated by a sequence of ‘debt collection’ letters, at a time when no actual debt has been established.

The Court is invited to dismiss the Claim, and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

I believe the facts stated in this Defence Statement are true.

---

(Defendant)

---

(Date)