county Court Claim Form - VCS Limited parking fine

PrettyKittyKat

Thanks Coupon Mad.

There was no windscreen PCN. I read that without a PCN the parking company can therefore use the notice to keeper to pursue the keeper who is therefore responsible and the driver doesn't need to be identified for them to be liable? Have I misunderstood this? I tried reading the POFA 2012 to understand the things I am writing but it is in alot of jargon that I am not familiar with. I presume as no PCN that the example defence you mention wouldn't be suitable?

Thanks for clarifying that we should not name the driver. Does it matter how many employees the company has? what if they only have one person employed by the company? Could VCS / the judge say that is therefore reasonable to presume they are the driver as it can't be anything else?

The location is Grand Union Gardens Car Park (Loughborough) on the the particulars of claim. We tried googling this and could not find a location of this name. I found an old Debt recovery Plus Letter which states the location as Grand Union Gardens Car Park Loughborough LE11 1GF. This postcode is for Ferryman Road and seems to be social housing.

Thank you for confirming re signature I will update that now

Castle

PrettyKittyKat wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that we should not name the driver. Does it matter how many employees the company has? what if they only have one person employed by the company? Could VCS / the judge say that is therefore reasonable to presume they are the driver as it can't be anything else?

Not necessarily; most company car insurance policies will cover employees and family members to drive, (very handy at staff Xmas parties!), plus any person with permission from the company.

PrettyKittyKat

Castle wrote: »

Not necessarily; most company car insurance policies will cover employees and family members to drive, (very handy at staff Xmas parties!), plus any person with permission from the company.

Very true thank you for responding.

PrettyKittyKat

Do you think the defence is ok or would you make changes?

Coupon-mad

I read that without a PCN the parking company can therefore use the notice to keeper to pursue the keeper who is therefore responsible and the driver doesn't need to be identified for them to be liable...

Only if the PPC rely upon and comply with the POFA.

Read ANY VCS thread to learn that VCS do not, and cannot rely on the POFA, so cannot hold the keeper company liable under that law...but...

...instead, I expect VCS will try to rely on CPS v AJH Films Ltd so go and read it (Google it) and be aware of what the company Defendant's defence might be to that, if it turns out this location is somewhere that the driver (whoever that was) can't have been ''on business''.

I think, remove all of the below.

For starters I don't think the CRA2015 can protect a company. The Defendant is not a consumer individual:

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

I have no idea how the below fits this defence, because I didn't see anything above it talking about any promise of a right to park?

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.

There is nothing in the defence that explains that the Defendant is a company and cannot have been the driver. It needs to address that.

There is nothing in this draft defence saying that the company does not recognise this location as a business-related one, and thus concludes that if the car was at the location stated in the Particulars, then it was not on company business and the law of agency cannot apply either.

So the defence needs to say this: with no POFA and no law of agency to rely on, the Claimant has no cause of action.

There is nothing in the draft defence about what might have occurred, and if you cannot work out where this was and what it was all about, the defence doesn't tell the Judge that either.

It needs to state some facts, even if the facts are that the particulars of claim are so sparse (explain why) that the Company has no idea what the parking event was, where it was, or what the terms of parking were or what the alleged breach was, or what the signs said.

The defence needs to tell the Judge this (in words written in the third person on behalf of the Defendant company):

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

Thanks for your response coupon mad. We are out doing errands this morning so I will check everything you said and made the changes this afternoon and post the amendment up.

I have just realised that KeithP said the defence needs to be sent by 4pm tomorrow (Mon 29th) however I thought it was today (Sun 28th) as tomorrow would be 34 days. Is this because today is not a working day? I don't want to miss the deadline but it would of course be better to have longer to get advice and amend it.

KeithP

PrettyKittyKat wrote: »

I have just realised that KeithP said the defence needs to be sent by 4pm tomorrow (Mon 29th) however I thought it was today (Sun 28th) as tomorrow would be 34 days. Is this because today is not a working day? I don't want to miss the deadline but it would of course be better to have longer to get advice and amend it.

Exactly right.

If the calculated date falls on a non-working day then you are allowed until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.

This is fully explained in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue. Please note, if you have served separate particulars of claim then this may affect the deemed date of service (as above).

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

PrettyKittyKat

Thanks for confirming KeithP.

PrettyKittyKat

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXX LTD (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 is a limited company and as such cannot have been the driver of the vehicle.

4. 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.

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

4(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.
5. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the Claimant asset that a ‘CN’ was affixed to the vehicle. This is denied by the defendant 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.

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 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 Particulars of Claim lists the location as ‘Grand Union Gardens Car Park (Loughborough)’ with no road name or postcode, which returns no results when searched on Google. The Defendant has made attempts to identify this location however with the lack of specific information, and the refusal to respond with evidence, the Defendant has been unable to ascertain where the parking event was.

6(i) The Defendant does not recognise the location as a business-related one as there is only one address within the Loughborough area that the business attends, which is not of this name. Due to this the Defendant concludes that if the vehicle was at the location stated in the Particulars then it was not on company business and the law of agency cannot apply either.

7. Should VCS provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN. 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.

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

9. With no POFA and no law of agency to rely on, the Claimant has no cause of action.

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.

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

Name
Signature
Company Director
Date

Redx

remove the word STATEMENT, its just DEFENCE, nothing more


see the BARGEPOLE defences for clarity on headers and footers etc