county Court Claim Form - VCS Limited parking fine

Redx

signage always applies, because the signage forms the contract, so if this driver parked to eat lunch and didnt see the signs, then the signs were not adequate enough

ie:- Lord Dennings red hand rule

signs should be simple and convey the fact of the rules of parking, like saying NO PARKING in large letters so any driver is under any illusion that they can park there


also POFA2012 applies, so irrespective of what the driver did or didnt do, the KEEPER or business is not liable unless the claimant has abided by POFA2012


try reading recent BARGEPOLE honed defences, where he keeps it simple

PrettyKittyKat

Thanks for your quick and comprehensive response redx. We don't actual know what the signs say as the driver can't remember using the car park!

It isn't local to us to pop over and check.

Is it worth us contacting VCS and asking them again for the evidence of the vehicle committing the 'contravention'? Although the particulars of the claim don't actually say what this contravention is and the letter before claim just said breaching the T's and C's. Would it be beneficial for us to request a copy of the T and C's with confirmation of which 1 has alleged to have been broken?

Surely if VCS can't evidence that the vehicle was in the car park then there is no case? Or is that my naivety?

Redx

yes, send them a SAR using the GDPR

see the GDPR FIGHTBACK 2018 thread by coupon_mad for help on SAR,s

get all their pics, docs , signage , contracts evidence, anything at all

they may not send everything, plus it might take 30 days which you dont have for the defence, but at this stage your defence is about why your company is not liable

chances are that they DO have pics of the vehicle on the site

if I were you, I would tell your drivers to take their luck breaks on public roads or somewhere with no restrictions, not private car parks like retail parks, business parks , supermarkets , hospitals , etc


whatever happens , DO NOT MISS YOUR DEFENCE DEADLINE OF 33 days since the DATE OF ISSUE (at the end of this month , like KeithP told you earlier)

bargepole

PrettyKittyKat wrote: »

I have spoken to CAB who said they had not come across this query before and were not sure. She said it was strange, as I thought it was, as I was only asking for clarification on how to register on their site not for any legal advice. They recommended trying the court using the number on the claim from, then trying the open justice law clinic.

I rang the number on the claim form but this was actually MCOL again so I thought I would just ask another adviser and see what they said. I spoke to someone who was happy to assist and confirmed I should register as an organisation and put directors name as point of contact within the business. (I wanted to pop the update in here incase anyone else has the same query!)

I am going to re-register now and complete the acknowledgement of service using the guide on the newbies thread.

I can't believe that you had to go through all this to get a simple query answered.

If the named Defendant on the claim form is Joe Bloggs, he should register on MCOL as an individual, and defend the case as Joe Bloggs.

If the named Defendant is Acme Widgets Ltd., they should register on MCOL as an organisation, and defend the case as Acme Widgets Ltd.

This is simple, basic, kindergarten stuff that should be obvious even to a blind badger in a bag. This is not 'legal advice', it's a procedural query that all the staff at the CCBC should be trained to answer.

As for the CAB, there is one regular on these forums who volunteers one day a week, but as for the rest of them, if they can't answer such a straightforward question, you have to wonder whether they should be let loose on the public at all.

PrettyKittyKat

bargepole wrote: »

I can't believe that you had to go through all this to get a simple query answered.

If the named Defendant on the claim form is Joe Bloggs, he should register on MCOL as an individual, and defend the case as Joe Bloggs.

If the named Defendant is Acme Widgets Ltd., they should register on MCOL as an organisation, and defend the case as Acme Widgets Ltd.

This is simple, basic, kindergarten stuff that should be obvious even to a blind badger in a bag. This is not 'legal advice', it's a procedural query that all the staff at the CCBC should be trained to answer.

As for the CAB, there is one regular on these forums who volunteers one day a week, but as for the rest of them, if they can't answer such a straightforward question, you have to wonder whether they should be let loose on the public at all.

That you for clarifying it. I was also shocked that it took so much effort to find this information!

PrettyKittyKat

OK so despite telling myself I would get this sorted asap I let life get in the way and am only now getting my head around this.

I have a emailed a SAR to get more information.

Is it still important to refuse to acknowledge who as driving the vehicle? I have read a post by the Slithy Tove which says since POFA they can go after the registered kepper anyway.... so does this really matter anymore? What if there is only one person working for the company and thus not multiple employees that could have been driving? Wouldn't a judge be happier if you said 'yes it was me who drove it and the signs were not correct, I didn't recall doing x y and z' etc?

PrettyKittyKat

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE STATEMENT

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 is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

3(i) the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

3(ii) There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

4. 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.

5. 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. 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.

6. In addition despite requests the Claimant has failed to provide evidence of the alleged contravention. The Defendant has no record of being present at the address provided on the particulars of claim, as the company only has one contract in Loughborough which is not at this address. For this reason the Defendant has no evidence that the vehicle was parked as indicated by the Claimant.

7. Should the claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim then the signage on the car park must have been insufficient to go unnoticed by the vehicle driver. Therefore, 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause.

9. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of £185.00 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

10. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle of promissory estoppel, i.e. that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration, when party A has made a promise to party B, who then relies on that promise to his subsequent detriment.

11. This charge represents a breach of the well-known and well-established principle that 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant'. This rule embodies a general legal principle that, if A agrees to confer a benefit on B, then A should not do anything that substantially deprives B of the enjoyment of that benefit.



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.

Statement of Truth:
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

PrettyKittyKat

Ok, I have tried looking at a few defences linked in the newbies thread and put together points I think are relevant.

Any advice, amendments etc you can recommend are much appreciated.

Having spoken with my husband more it seems there is only one contract for the business in loughborough and it is not at this address. It has taken us a while to figure the address out as if you google the details given on the particular (which doesnt include a postcode) it isn't recognised. It is only after looking back through old letters I managed to find the postcode. The address seems to take to a housing complex and the business attends a different housing complex so would have no reason to go to this one. It is quite close proximity to the address they claim the car was parked so it is unlikely that it was someone stopping to eat lunch as we originally thought! Of course being 10.5 months away it is now not possible to exactly recall why the vehicle was there.

PrettyKittyKat

If anyone is free to offer advice/amendments on the above and help with my queries it would be much appreciated

I need to send the defence this weekend so just conscious and feel like I have no idea what I'm doing!

Coupon-mad

in respect of an alleged breach of Parking Terms and Conditions at xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Loughborough, Lxxxxxxx on 7th December 2017. This PCN states that a previous a previous NTK was issued on 13th December 2017

Due to those dates, if there was a 'sort of' windscreen PCN (e.g. for parking out of a bay or without a permit) I suggest the Defendant Ltd company should be using the example defence from the NEWBIES thread about VCS 'hybrid' CNs which were not Parking Charge Notices at all. That example was written to be used by anyone with a VCS hybrid 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' as the first notice on a windscreen.

No saying who was driving; the company can't be held liable unless VCS strike very lucky and convince the Judge the driver must have been 'acting on behalf of' the company on company business.

It explains why there can be no keeper liability, and has the usual stuff about unclear signs that everyone MUST include even if you've never seen the signs/don't know where the place is.

The signature at the end of the defence should give the name but also explain the company position of the signatory within the Defendant company (e.g. 'Company Director/Company Secretary, Acme Widgets Ltd').

What location does it allege? Maybe one of us will know the VCS site, as we've seen them all.