Vehicle Control Services County Court Claim

meema925

Hi all

Thanks in advance for help

I'm new to forums and apologise for not fully reading everything as I should have done to the level of detail required . You're all doing an amazingly patient job of bearing with us panicking newbies!

All previous evidence I submitted was online to VCS, I am now unable to access they part of the website to view previous submissions. Could this form part of my SAR request? In terms of defence should I mention previous correspondence , i.e. I know what the claim is for even tough it's not set out in POC. I've attempted a defence without fully doing this as set out below as I'm assuming the specifics are for witness statement?

to recap, POC details CN for contravention which I have failed to pay demands for.
I got a ticket for not displaying a paper pass for a company i was working for , I tried to appeal but it was denied on the grounds my number plate wasn't on my pass, my employer didn't issue number plates on passes and neither did any other employer using the car park.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: E6Q****

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Limited VCS1952027 (Claimant)

-and-

*********** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT
________________________________________


DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant was the owner of a ___ vehicle variously with registration marks___ as permitted by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority ("the DVLA")

3. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to a charge notice incurred on *******. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

4. It is admitted that the Defendant parked their vehicle on the dates stated whilst working at MY COMPANY. The premises are operated by MY COMPANY with whom the Defendant worked and was permitted parking free of charge. A copy of the employment contract will be provided to the court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given by MY COMPANY. It has previously been offered to Vehicle Control Services as validation of The Defendants right to park but has been denied.

5.The Defendant denies any separate contract with the Claimant in respect of parking arrangements. It is not admitted that the Claimant has contractual or other lawful authority to bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof. Further, and in the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Claimant requires the permission of MY COMPANY or the owner of the relevant land, if different, to commence proceedings.





6. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
6.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
6.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
6.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
6.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
6.1.4. The signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.


7. The Claimant may also rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

8. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at almost double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

9. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably ****, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

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

***** 09/10/18

Redx

also study this thread where the defendant won in court today


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5822601/vcs-ltd-county-court-claim-defence-help&page=4


seems quite similar to me

meema925

Thanks for help so far. Any further advice on my witness statement please? I've also included all the cases mentioned in my WS to send to court, along with Beavis and Popla. I have a request for witness statement but no court date set yet. Witness statement needs to be in for 4pm on 31/12/18. My original letter went astray so I'm trying to put it together in a bit of a rush as other sides WS arrival prompted me to realise this. Other side have pics of signage etc which is why its not referenced.

Vehicle Control Services Limited v me
me of England witness statement:


1. I was employed by *******during November and December 2017. My employment contract is being sought at this time but will be available for court (my small claims allocation order went astray and I only became aware of the need to submit on 19/12/18 after a phone conversation with the court after receiving a witness statement from VCS). In the interim, my P45 is to demonstrate my employment during the aforementioned time.

2. I was given a ********** PERMIT for the car park by my line manager ******. Alongside PARKING RESTRICTIONS HILIGHTED indicating bays to avoid.

3. I always displayed my pass but believe on this occasion it had blown off my dashboard. I received a PCN.

4. I appealed the PCN on the basis of being an employee and having a valid permit to park. Vehicle Control Services requested further evidence and asked to see my parking permit which I submitted. After taking it into consideration my appeal was turned down since my ***** PERMIT was an ‘open permit’ and not specific to myself or my vehicle. All other employees for ********* use the same permits. I have enclosed a ****** PERMIT as evidence of another business at ******. **** like the rest of the business operating in ******* use ‘open’ permits.

5. I have received debt collection letters and a letter before claim. Having researched this online I have not paid the reduced fee believing I would facilitate the unscrupulous and unfair industry parliament is attempting to change:
hansard
''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; ''the British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.


6. As a contracted employee of ****** I believe I had the right to park at the ******* and that my contract was with them and not Vehicle Control Services. My boss sent APPEAL LETTER to Vehicle Control serviced on 17/10/18 to confirm my right to park at ****** after this charge was brought against me to request its dismissal.

7. PACE v Lengyel!(C7GF6E3R) dismissed that signage created a contract between landowner and driver. Similarly, I believe my contract to be with ***** and not the landowner or VCS.

8. I submitted a SAR to VCS 11/10/18 and also requested the land ownership contract but was refused on the basis this was a commercially sensitive document that would only be made available to the court of law. I have the reasonable belief that VCS do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and they have no rights to bring about this case.

9. ParkingEye v Sharma 2013 (3QT62646) examined the contract and dismissed the claim for the reason that the claimant had no ownership of, or propriety interest in , the land; it followed that the claimant, acting as agent, had no locus standi to bring court proceedings in its own name.

10. ParkingEye v Gardam 2013 (3QT60598) similarly examined the argument and found the case persuasive.

11. ParkingEye v Somerfield 2011 (EWCA CIV1338 CASE A3/2011/0909) stated any debt was due to Somerfield and that parking eye did not have the authority to issue proceedings. It follows any debt is due to the landowner not the claimant.

12. The adjacent road to ****** had PARKING AVAILABILITY until 10.30 at a PARKING COST of 60p/ hour. Therefore, the £100 initial charge is significantly inflated



I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

meema925

I lost :-(

meema925

I went to court today and lost . The judge upheld that I had entered into a contract with vehicle control service and I had broken that contract . He did not award costs as I had behaved reasonable and the signage wasn't adequate regarding additional cost. The judge commented that it was not a court of morality and if it were the outcome may be different, but in a court of law it wasn't .

The_Deep

Can you tell us howthe court case wen please.