URGENT fighting County Court Claim for PCN

Redx

KeithP wrote: »

My wife and I often travel together in the same car. Obviously only one of us will be driving and equally obviously only one of us is the Registered Keeper - who happens to be the owner. Either one of us will be driving depending on the particular circumstance.

same here, one of us is the owner and RK, we both drive the vehicle and only last friday one of us drove to asda and the other drove back home, we wont get a ticket but if we did then who is liable ? or seeing as its PE at my local asda it wont matter because they will follow POFA2012 because we stupidly live in England (whose occupants also stupidly pay prescription charges and hospital car park fees etc)


oh wait, the vehicle is on a whitelist under the EA2010 which actually is a law that applies in England


however, all this pedantry by the OP isnt really helping because the MCOL system in Northampton is processing huindreds of thousands of claims and has done so for several years, so although they arent perfect, they have a routine that they follow that is overseen by a Sir Humphrey somewhere, who has appointed procedural judges to deal with the initial stages

adambuzz14

lets forget about the validity of the bulk centre, as i said, its not my intention to question this to the court or fight it this way, i was just curious as to what others thought.

I've read on here loads of posts where people are defending very specific circumstances but also claiming they aren't the driver, and i have also read posts where people are advising not to do this as in court the judge can apply Balance of probability and then hit you harder because he/she thinks you are not being truthful. again, i was just asking what most people advise. Can my sole defence be that i am only the owner of the vehicle and until they send me proof of who was driving, then i have nothing more to add or prove?

Redx

I dont know of any laws that say that the OWNER is liable, not unless its a penalty, so if the owner is Barclays or VW finance, they are not responsible for the drivers actions


only POFA21012 can hold the keeper liable , so the PPC has to try to prove that a keeper is liable, or if the driver is known or divulged then the driver is definitely liable for their own actions and so could be deemed culpable


under POFA2012 , if the conditions are met then the KEEPER is liable for the actions of the driver, should a judge say so

adambuzz14

My NTK just states *********** Lane parking spaces, and then the City followed by the postcode... there are at least 3 car parks on this road. have they done enough to specify the location? will this count under paragraph 9 of The notice must—
(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

adambuzz14

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No:********

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

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

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ********, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.
2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by clear signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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. The signage isn’t visible at all in darkness due to no lighting and a very small number of signs.

5.1 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.


5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.3. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

7. The POFA, 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.

7.2 The claimant (VCS Limited) appear to be adding fraudulent charges for failed debt recovery by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd they have not had to pay.

8. The claimant (VCS Limited) has had no permission to share the defendant’s personal data with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd or Debt Recovery Plus Trading as Zenith Collections.

8. The defendant has requested Evidence (Photos, ANPR logs etc) from the claimant (VCS Limited), but request has gone unanswered.

8.1 The location has only ever been given by the claimant (VCS LIMTED) as ‘******** lane Parking spaces, ************* **1 ***’ of which there are around five (5) separate parking areas on the road in question. Without reasonable evidence, how can the defendant answer not only the PCN but also the claim?


9. No letter before court has ever been received by the defendant from the claimant (VCS Limited) failing to give the defendant concise details of the claim, including; the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated. Furthermore, denying the claimant reasonable time to respond.

10. 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.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me, except your numbering goes wrong here:

7. The POFA, 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.

7.2 The claimant (VCS Limited) appear to be adding fraudulent charges for failed debt recovery by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd they have not had to pay.

8. The claimant (VCS Limited) has had no permission to share the defendant’s personal data with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd or Debt Recovery Plus Trading as Zenith Collections.

8. The defendant has requested Evidence (Photos, ANPR logs etc) from the claimant (VCS Limited), but request has gone unanswered.

adambuzz14

yeah, dont worry. i copied for the forum before finishing off and correcting my word doc.
is the point about data protection a valid one? or will a judge say they have a right to pass my personal data to Debt recovery plus?

KeithP

adambuzz14 wrote: »

is the point about data protection a valid one? or will a judge say they have a right to pass my personal data to Debt recovery plus?

Whether a judge says it or not, they do have the right to pass your personal data to Debt recovery plus.

adambuzz14

KeithP wrote: »

Whether a judge says it or not, they do have the right to pass your personal data to Debt recovery plus.

so that point needs removing?

KeithP

In my opinion - yes.