Vcs letter before claim...mistake of calling VCS when receiving NTK...Help!

Suggii

thank you Nosferatu1001, will work on that point and post final draft when done.

Suggii

Point 11 adjusted. hope it sounds better.
I will be printing, signing and scanning the document ready to email today.


IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, registration XXXX at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, was a private Hire Vehicle, and the defendant only entered into the car park on a request of the passenger riding in the vehicle, to be dropped off at Albert Street Car Park. However, the defendant could not leave due to a mechanical problem with the vehicle, which made it difficult for the defendant to leave the car park earlier and in time.

4. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'. In fact, there was no relevant obligation or contract in play. The private hire vehicle was not parked and did not take up space in a parking bay, thus ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is distinguished, due to completely different facts.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

6. 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.


7. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

7.1. 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 is 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.

7.2. In any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking, not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued by VCS are:
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C.

8. The claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant could only form a contract with Excel Parking LTD, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the email correspondence by Excel Parking. The claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim

9. In addition though, the contract was frustrated. Even if a contract had been formed with the claimant (which is denied), then essentially the contract, is deemed null and void if either party is prevented - through no fault of that party - from upholding the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case the defendant was prevented from adhering to the terms and conditions through a mechanical problem with the vehicle. If the contract is deemed void as a result then Excel cannot sue for breach (and nor can the claimant).

10. 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.

11. 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. The Supreme Court did not allow anything other than the basic Notice to Keeper amount, which in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is below the amount being asked by the claimant. Furthermore the recovery of sums is in excess of what was in any supposed contract, and the defendant cannot contract for an unknown sum.

12. 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
Signature
Date

Suggii

sorry just edited point 11 below removing keeper bit.


11. The maximum sum that may be recovered 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. The Supreme Court did not allow anything other than the basic Notice to Keeper amount, which in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is below the amount being asked by the claimant. Furthermore the recovery of sums is in excess of what was in any supposed contract, and the defendant cannot contract for an unknown sum.

Suggii

Just read bargepoles walk through the claims track. Can I email VCS the defence? Rather than post.

Also I have received the Direct Questions, can they be emailed or posted?

Suggii

Hi,

VCS have sent a letter today stating 'notice of Recovery'
They state they have been awarded a CCJ against me husband the day after the defence deadline. And that payment has to be made otherwise bailiffs etc.

Can anyone please explain how this is possible if I have jus filled out a direction's questionnaire to be posted from the CCBC.
How did VCS get a CCJ against my OH?

Suggii

I have checked MCOL account nothing mentions a CCJ. It just says defences recieved (well in time before deadline) and that directions questionnaire sent.

Is this a trick by VCS? They claim payment must be made within 7 days ( doesn't the court give 14days if a CCJ is passed?)

Suggii

Just an update, managed to speak to someone from CCBC. They confirmed that there is no CCJ on this account, and VCS have jumped the gun, assuming I didnt submit my defence online in time. (Which I did).
And I still have time to submit my directions questionnaire, so all good.

Can this be used against VCS in witness statement or not?

KeithP

Suggii wrote: »

Also I have received the Direct Questions, can they be emailed or posted?

Return your completed Directions Questionnaire to the CCBC using the same email address and in the same manner that you sent your Defence.

Refresh you memory by re-reading post #76 above.

Remember to send a copy to the Claimant - address on your Claim Form.

Suggii

Would I need to follow up, if my DQ being submitted doesnt show up on the MCOL account? I can't see it on the account that it is recieved.
I sent it last week on 19th via email and post. I recieved just an email from CCBC that it is a receipt for receiving my email.
Any advice would be great.

Regards.

KeithP

Well yes, surely you want that confirmation.

However, pretty sure I read on here in the last couple of days that the CCBC were around six days behind on logging DQs.

Sorry, I can't recall who mentioned that.