Court Claim Form Received

Motherhubbad

Good afternoon,

The RK of a vehicle has received a claim form from County Court Business Centre on behalf of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) for '...Charge Notice (CN) contravention at XXX on land XXX. The CN allowed the defendant 28 days to pay the CN but the defendant failed to do so...'.

The facts are that the driver was parking on 'private property' in a space to which they needed a valid permit displayed.
A windscreen ticket was issued on the day (9/12/2017) and a NTK issued afterwards. I can grab a copy of the NTK if needs be.

The Newbies thread was followed, sending in the template appeal letter which did not identify the driver and then all debt collector letters ignored.

A letter before action was received before the court claim form although we failed to make a response. We have acknowledged the claim by following the guide in the newbies thread.

My question is: On what points should we defend? The driver had no valid permit to park there but the car park itself I would say was improperly signed.

Any help or pointers would be appreciated thanks guys,
I have roughly 10 days to submit my defence.

onlyfoolsandparking

Read the newbies thread again as it wasn't fully followed, LBA/LBCCC are NOT to be ignored but no worries you are now where you are with a particularly nasty scammer who does do court.


Loads of VCS defences here and a few recent court wins so find them read them and follow the advice from the regulars, they CAN be beaten.


Oh and don't forget to do your AOS and post issue date of claim.

Motherhubbad

Yes stupidly overlooked the LBA, but as you say, what's done is done.

I'll continue to have a good luck through some of the recent VCS defenses while writing up my own.

AOS was completed straight away, claim issue date was 25/09/2018

Motherhubbad

DEFENCE

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

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) 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 state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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

Motherhubbad wrote: »

AOS was completed straight away, claim issue date was 25/09/2018

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th September, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th October 2018 to file your Defence.

That's almost two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a top class Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


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

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) 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'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Motherhubbad

Hi guys, so with defence submission day looming, I've been looking to elaborate on my original points. I was planning to rely upon VCS not having followed PoFA 2012 but upon comparing my original NTK against PoFA guidelines it appears they have.
Rendering #3 totally useless?

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.

I'm continuing to search the forum for anything more that may be of use and to continue to elaborate my current points but any pointers in the right direction would be wholly appreciated.

Motherhubbad

Also #7

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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.

appears also to be rendered useless as on the NTK it states:

"Failure to make a payment within 28 days of the issue date of this notice will result in the full charge of £100 being applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken, further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value of the PCN up to the value of an additional £60.e.t.c"

KeithP

Motherhubbad wrote: »

Also #7

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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.

appears also to be rendered useless as on the NTK it states:

"Failure to make a payment within 28 days of the issue date of this notice will result in the full charge of £100 being applied plus additional costs incurred through debt recovery and/or court action. Where debt recovery action is taken, further charges may be incurred that will be added to the value of the PCN up to the value of an additional £60.e.t.c"

But the PPC cannot arbitrarily change the terms of a contract without the agreement of both parties. Obviously the NtK was received well after the event.

Coupon-mad

so with defence submission day looming, I've been looking to elaborate on my original points. I was planning to rely upon VCS not having followed PoFA 2012 but upon comparing my original NTK against PoFA guidelines it appears they have.
Rendering #3 totally useless?

No.

Wrong.

Look closer at the 28 day period, they say 'from the date of issue of this notice'. The law does NOT say that period!

It's out by at least 2 days, sometimes up to a week out depending on weekends/bank holidays for SERVICE OF THE NOTICE.

Also, you say:

A windscreen ticket was issued on the day (9/12/2017)

I say, are you SURE?

VCS were relying on hybrid 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' bits of paper in 2017. Not a PCN at all. You can tell for sure, if the NTK was issued before day 29, then the first 'CN' was a hybrid 'NOT a PCN' one.

See the example VCS defence about hybrid CNs, in the NEWBIES thread; that example is there for the taking/using.

Motherhubbad

KeithP wrote: »

But the PPC cannot arbitrarily change the terms of a contract without the agreement of both parties. Obviously the NtK was received well after the event.

So as the sign states:
"Parking Charge £100.00 Reducing to £60.00 if full payment is received within 14 days of the Parking Charge Notice issue date"
The further incurred £60.00 would have to be later agreed by both parties?

Motherhubbad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No.

Wrong.

Look closer at the 28 day period, they say 'from the date of issue of this notice'. The law does NOT say that period!

It's out by at least 2 days, sometimes up to a week out depending on weekends/bank holidays for SERVICE OF THE NOTICE.

It states on the NTK:

"Payment is now required in the sum of £100.00 within 28 days of the Issue Date of this Notice i.e.no later than XXXX"

This is false as the NTK was sent 6 days after the alleged contravention and are already aiming to recover costs from the Keeper?