BW Legal Letter of Claim

Urb14

Hi guys, I've been served a county court claim form by VCS.
Alleged contravention is being in a private car park without displaying a permit.
I have seen an example of a previous defence on here where VCS issue a windscreen ticket that says 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' and then call it a parking charge afterwards. This is the main premise of my defence but I'm not sure if its strong enough. I would appreciate any feedback or any additional defences I could include. Also I am unsure of the relevancy of point 5) to my case. Thanks in advance

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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 red 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/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by 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.

5.1. 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.

5.2. 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 propietary 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.

8. 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.

KeithP

Urb14 wrote: »

Hi guys, I've been served a county court claim form by VCS.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Urb14

Issue date 29th April
Yes its from Northampton, (St Katharines House)

KeithP

Urb14 wrote: »

Issue date 29th April
Yes its from Northampton, (St Katharines House)

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th April, you have until Monday 20th May to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd June 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

Our Client's cause of action is that you breached the terms and conditions of the contract which you entered into by parking your vehicle in the car park, by failing to display a valid Pay & Display Ticket (PDT) or permit to park.

Is this a case of:

- only stopping there for 12 minutes or so then leaving without accepting the contract?

- not seeing the signs & machines as it was dark/they were obscured?

- not displaying a permit, as opposed to a PDT?

- paying but putting in the wrong VRN?

- paying but the PDT fell off the dashboard in the wind?

- paying but overstaying paid for time (by how long in minutes)?

Does the claim (in the POC) say full particulars to follow within 14 days?

Which car park is this as we see lots of VCS ones and the signs can be an issue for them?

Urb14

It is a case of not displaying a permit in a permit holders only car park (no pay and display option)
Time stamp on photos means I wouldn't be able to argue 12min grace period
Signage was pretty clear to be honest

Might have to bite the bullet on this one.. :think:

No, the POC doesn't say full particulars to follow in 14 days

Coupon-mad

Might have to bite the bullet on this one.

Why do you think that? We defend all 'no permit cases'. This is normal and the signs are never clear as regards the parking charge being in the largest font.

VCS signs are shockingly bad.

Anyway, to understand the no permit arguments, read PACE v Lengyel from the Parking Prankster's case law pages, and then search this forum for:

PACE v Lengyel defence void for impossibility.

Urb14

I looked into Pace vs Lengyel.

One of the points made is about the wording of the contract between the operator and landowner. I'm not sure how I'd go about obtaining this information for my case.

With regards to signage I could argue that there was no entrance sign to the private land where the PCN was given, but I think this would be weak as my car was parked right in front of a repeater sign displaying the full T&C's.

Could I argue impossibility of performance as I was not given any information on how to obtain a parking permit?

Coupon-mad

One of the points made is about the wording of the contract between the operator and landowner. I'm not sure how I'd go about obtaining this information for my case.

You include it in the defence, as seen in pretty much all the defence examples on here. They must then produce it at WS & evidence stage.

Could I argue impossibility of performance as I was not given any information on how to obtain a parking permit?

Yes, it is arguable, but would depend on the Judge.

Can you show us the sign please, a link to a Dropbox shared image?

Urb14

link removed