county Court Claim Form - VCS Limited parking fine

PrettyKittyKat

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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''. Thank you, I will have a read up on this

I think, remove all of the below. All removed

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


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?


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. Now in point 3

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. Probably bad wordly before and not refrring the law of agency, hopefully better worded now in point 6(1)

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.Point 9

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. Point 5, Point 6, Point 6(i), Point 7 - which I think is the signage wording you said always need to be included?

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

Thank you for your indepth response Coupon Mad, it is much appreciated. I have noted above the points that I think I have addressed the points you raised. Please let me know if you think I have worded them incorrectly.

PrettyKittyKat

My husband leaves for work at 6.15am tomorrow so I will be up early to get it printed and him to sign it before he goes. Any help or advice on the above this evening is much appreciated! I know I am cutting is super fine so I really appreciate you taking your time to read the defence above

PrettyKittyKat

Redx wrote: »

remove the word STATEMENT, its just DEFENCE, nothing more


see the BARGEPOLE defences for clarity on headers and footers etc

Will do that now thank you. I used Bargepoles template to start with so must have amended it by accident along the way. Will double check.

Redx

you could get him to sign a piece of paper as a digital signature and add it to the pdf as a picture addition, instead of printing , signing and then scanning


google digital signature

PrettyKittyKat

Updated hopefully with better format as per bargepoles defences

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXX LTD (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE

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 the Claimant 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Company Director
Date

PrettyKittyKat

Redx wrote: »

you could get him to sign a piece of paper as a digital signature and add it to the pdf as a picture addition, instead of printing , signing and then scanning


google digital signature

Oh good idea, saves me having to get up at the crack of dawn too!

Coupon-mad

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.

Typo above, should be 'assert'.

I would change this as the start didn't make much sense for a company:

4. The [STRIKE]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[/STRIKE] sparse Particulars of 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. The Defendant company has no idea of where this location is, what the signage terms might have said, whether the signs were prominent and clear, or even what the alleged breach was. Nor has any evidence been supplied.

The only things I think you've missed are:

- the usual objection to the added 'damages/costs', and

- distinguishing the case from the Beavis case,

...like in this taken from another defence:

. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £50 costs were incurred.The Defendant believes that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £185.00 minus the court costs of £25.00. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

. 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, which is improperly pleaded and wrongly aimed at a company Defendant which, as a commercial entity, cannot have been the 'driver' and is not liable in law.

PrettyKittyKat

Thank you Coupon Mad. I have now emailed the below Defence as a PDF to the court.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXXXXXXXX LTD (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE

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 assert 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.

6. The sparse Particulars of Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or the 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. The Defendant company has no idea of where this location is, what the signage terms might have said, whether the signs were prominent and clear, or even what the alleged breach was. Nor has any evidence been supplied.

7. 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.

8. 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.

8(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.

9. Should the Claimant 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.

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

11. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the Particulars of Claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £60 costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £185.00 minus the court costs of £25.00. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

12. 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, which is improperly pleaded and wrongly aimed at a company Defendant which, as a commercial entity, cannot have been the 'driver' and is not liable in law.

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

14. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

XXXXXXXXXXXX
Company Director of XXXXXXXXXXXX LTD
Date:

PrettyKittyKat

Due to a mix up when signing up to the online system we don't have access to get updates. From Bargepoles court claim procedure post I believe the next step is that the court sends our defence to VCS and a directors questionnaire to both sides. Is this usually sent in the post?

PrettyKittyKat

I have received the questionnaire in the post today and have until 15th November to make sure it back to them.

I am going to sue bargepoles post linked in the newbies thread.

Out of curiosity, does mediation ever work? Or re the parking companies always insistent that the full amount must be paid and therefore it is not worthwhile?