URGENT fighting County Court Claim for PCN

Coupon-mad

adambuzz14 wrote: »

so that point needs removing?

Yes I agree, it's pointless.

adambuzz14

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes I agree, it's pointless.

But everything else seems ok/Valid?

adambuzz14

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes I agree, it's pointless.

Coupon mad, i read a post of yours on another thread that states 'VCS do not, and cannot rely on POFA'...

can you explain why is this? my defence mentions POFA, so is this relevant to me?

I will be submitting my defence this afternoon, so if anyone has any more advice before i do, feel free to add.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Read any other VCS thread, and/or compare your NTK to the POFA.

You need to understand why it doesn't comply, not me telling you (and it is in loads of other VCS threads already).

adambuzz14

So after submitting my reply to the court bulk centre letter, i got the usual bits through, advising mediation etc which i declined. I then got given my court date of 31st May 2019.

I note the court paperwork sates that the claimant has a certain number of days to pay for court fee or submit evidence for the claim to stand, and i also know i have to put together my evidence. its been nearly 4 months, but today i have finally received VCS evidence so i can see what the driver is accused of and what i have to defend.

there is a lot of legal wording, statements, examples of other cases etc, and then photos of my vehicle totalling 48 pages long. Is it advisable for me to scan this and post on here?

I personally was thinking that they have left it that late, and tried so hard to get me into mediation, that they weren't going to press ahead with this, but obviously now it appears that isn't the case.

I need to start putting my evidence together to send off by next week. I will go back through the guides to refresh myself, but i'm mainly relying on photographs, the fact they put a notice on the windscreen saying 'this is not a parking charge notice'.

any tips on how to present this? VCS evidence has codes for photos etc, do i need this?

thanks again

Coupon-mad

there is a lot of legal wording, statements, examples of other cases etc, and then photos of my vehicle totalling 48 pages long. Is it advisable for me to scan this and post on here?

Yes (some of it) but please read any other VCS court threads first as this stuff is a template, all the same except for the photos.

Please read other VCS court threads, you will learn so much more from them. And it will spare us if you don't scan the pages that are generic (please don't).

I need to start putting my evidence together to send off by next week. I will go back through the guides to refresh myself, but i'm mainly relying on photographs, the fact they put a notice on the windscreen saying 'this is not a parking charge notice'.

any tips on how to present this? VCS evidence has codes for photos etc, do i need this?

The NEWBIES thread has tips on Witness Statement and evidence.

adambuzz14

Cheers for the reply Coupon-mad.
Yeah I've been refreshing myself with the newbies thread, and I've also read a load of witness statements, its just hard to find a direction to go in.

As you say, I've compared my WS from VCS, to others on here and can see for the most part, they are just using a generic template with maybe a page or two which is specific for me.

I think whats troubling me the most is the fact in their WS, they have told me all the points I had referenced in my defence are wrong or don't apply. I think its easy on here for less experienced like me to go through the whole process, and think you're learning from the newbie threat and reading other cases. You find yourself referencing POFA, time frames and whether a notice on a windscreen is a charge notice etc, but you don't really know the bigger picture and what points are going to win it for you. I will upload (what i think) is the personal part of the WS i have received.

Thanks Again

Coupon-mad

in their WS, they have told me all the points I had referenced in my defence are wrong or don't apply.

They always do, this is how the game of chess works v a PPC scammer.

adambuzz14

I've just scanned the whole bundle as a PDF, but its there generic waffle up till page 17of their bundle (page 9 of the actual PDF), so if you go from then on, i think that will be the detail you need.

Ive added it to drop box and shared the link ( i assume that's allowed)

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/bzsqj4c44swez13/WS%20personal%20details%20removed.pdf?dl=0

after the WS is site information with the contract between them and the landowner, as well as a load of generic photos of the site including the 2 signs. Following on from the Site info, are the images of my car in that land, in the dark (not the line where they say there is clearly a sign behind my vehicle in the photo and then look at what the sign looks like behind my vehicle in the photo) as well as copies of the letters i was sent. I still to this day dont ever recall; getting a letter before court.

I have added my defence in case anyone wants to reference this against the parking companies WS.

Thanks Again

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.
4.1. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.
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.

5.4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with their Trade Body Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. As far as I can ascertain, based upon the very vague particulars of claim and complete lack of evidence and photographs, and without having been furnished with the alleged signage, none of this applies in the extant, meritless case.

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.

adambuzz14

in my original defence submission, i noted the use of them sticking a 'this is not a parking notice' on the window as not being a NTD. Their response in the WS is basically, 'we don't claim it to be'.

This has stumped me a little, as its left me in limbo. They are clearly using this method to flaunt POFA and IPC rules about what details to include in a NTD, and how long to wait before issuing a NTK and transferring liability to the keeper.

In my mind, the fact you can log on, see the details on the contravention and pay the fine immediately using the 'this is not a parking charge notice', means surely this has to be a NTD?

What do you others think of this and has anyone made sense or found a way around this?