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

U414830

Hi can you give an update as I'm in the same situation as you albeit different circumstances with Albert Street Birmingham, I've submitted my defence and replied to the DQ following advice about no mediation, I've sent sar to both vcs and excel so just waiting for response then I'll draft a witness statement, I paid for a ticket but type incorrect vrn. My pay and display ticket has the excel logo on it same as the signage but vcs chasing.

U414830

I'm willing to go to court to fight my claim and looking forward to the outcome. I've not been stressed at all and welcome the judgement as he'll tell me what's fair and owed not vcs.

Coupon-mad

U414830 wrote: »

Hi can you give an update as I'm in the same situation as you albeit different circumstances with Albert Street Birmingham, I've submitted my defence and replied to the DQ following advice about no mediation, I've sent sar to both vcs and excel so just waiting for response then I'll draft a witness statement, I paid for a ticket but type incorrect vrn. My pay and display ticket has the excel logo on it same as the signage but vcs chasing.

Please start your own thread about this, so we can help you.

I like the idea of sending a SAR to both Excel and VCS, as this is Albert Street!

Suggii

hi below is my draft defence, your helpful advice would be appreciated.
I'm hoping to email it this week.




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, is 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 mechanical problem with car 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'.



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 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.

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

Coupon-mad

That's a decent defence. You could add:

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.

Suggii

thanks for that C-M! i was worried if it made sense, its a relief to hear. will add in the above to it. thank you so much.

i don't have to mention that VCS haven't replied to both my letter and email request to sent any info requested in the reply to LBC? and that my SAR was sent by Excel? or will i use this for Witness statement stage?

Suggii

Defence with C-Ms addition to point 4.

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, is 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 mechanical problem with car 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 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.

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

I have also posted this defence on PePiPoo that point 11 is weak as driver is known and claimant dnt need POFA if driver is known.

I’m a bit confused as to whether keep this point. Or to change it to the driver should only be charged the same amount of £100 as keeper amount?

Suggii

I mean I have been advised that point 11 is weak for defence as the driver is known.

nosferatu1001

As per pepipoo of course you cannot use POFA at all if the D is the known driver. None of the limits in costs can apply, as they only apply to the keeper
You can argue around recovery of sums in excess of what was in any supposed contract. You cannot contract for an unknown sum.