We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Defence Letter
ellie.52
Posts: 27 Forumite
Good evening all
I received an NTK from Vehicle Control Services Limited last year.
I was parked at Salford Quays in Manchester on double yellow lines with my father a blue badge holder, not realising it was private land.
I appealed it and stupidly admitted to being the driver (I know that was silly now). It is a leased vehicle so i panicked thinking the leasing company would pay the invoice and charge it on to me - I get it, bad move!!!!
I have now received an MCOL. I completed the AOS and have formulated my draft and was wondering if i could get some feedback please.
The particulars state:
The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £160 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Change Notice (CN) for a contravention on 29/11/2017 at Salford Quays Turning Circle and Taxi Drop (Salford).
When i log into their online portal the contravention is - Parked in a restricted/prohibited area
Thanks in advance for your time:
Sign Pic
https://ibb.co/gWYAi0
Vehicle Pic
https://ibb.co/mBS9bL
https://ibb.co/i72Li0
https://ibb.co/nPz0i0
https://ibb.co/daKY30
__________________________________________________________________________
In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on double yellow lines.
3. 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 yellow/black 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.
4. In line with the Equality Act 2010 a blue badge holder may park on double yellow lines on public land. The double yellow lines were deceiving and it was unclear that it was private land.
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.
6. Further and in the alternative, 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. The black image would indicate disabled persons are able to park here as the wording under the disabled sign is too small to be read.
7. 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.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.
9. 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.
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.
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
18th October 2018
I received an NTK from Vehicle Control Services Limited last year.
I was parked at Salford Quays in Manchester on double yellow lines with my father a blue badge holder, not realising it was private land.
I appealed it and stupidly admitted to being the driver (I know that was silly now). It is a leased vehicle so i panicked thinking the leasing company would pay the invoice and charge it on to me - I get it, bad move!!!!
I have now received an MCOL. I completed the AOS and have formulated my draft and was wondering if i could get some feedback please.
The particulars state:
The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £160 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of a Change Notice (CN) for a contravention on 29/11/2017 at Salford Quays Turning Circle and Taxi Drop (Salford).
When i log into their online portal the contravention is - Parked in a restricted/prohibited area
Thanks in advance for your time:
Sign Pic
https://ibb.co/gWYAi0
Vehicle Pic
https://ibb.co/mBS9bL
https://ibb.co/i72Li0
https://ibb.co/nPz0i0
https://ibb.co/daKY30
__________________________________________________________________________
In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No: XXXX
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXXX (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on double yellow lines.
3. 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 yellow/black 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.
4. In line with the Equality Act 2010 a blue badge holder may park on double yellow lines on public land. The double yellow lines were deceiving and it was unclear that it was private land.
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.
6. Further and in the alternative, 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. The black image would indicate disabled persons are able to park here as the wording under the disabled sign is too small to be read.
7. 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.
8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.
9. 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.
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.
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
18th October 2018
0
Comments
-
The sign is forbidding as it does not offer parking, therefore no contract can be formed.
Do an advanced forum search, set to show posts, using forbidding signs to find other instances to help you.
Follow the guide to court in post 2 of the NEWBIES if you haven't already found it.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?0
-
Thanks, it’s the 27th September.
Due to submit defence by 25th October but to be safe I have put it in my diary to submit on 23rd.0 -
Thanks will search.
Yes been following Newbie guide.0 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 27th September, and hopefully having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 30th October 2018 to file your Defence....it’s the 27th September.
That's over 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.0 -
Good Evening
I have added point number 5 to mention the prohibiting sign.
Is this defence ok to submit?
In the COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXXXX
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on double yellow lines.
3. 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 yellow/black 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.
4. In line with the Equality Act 2010 a blue badge holder may park on double yellow lines on public land. The double yellow lines were deceiving and it was unclear that it was private land.
5. The signs used by the claimant cannot constitute a contract as they are prohibitive or forbidding and do not have the necessary requirements of a contract, offer, acceptance and consideration. The supreme court stated in Parking Eye v Beavis that only the land owner/occupier could sue for trespass.
6. 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.
7. Further and in the alternative, 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. The black image would indicate disabled persons are able to park here as the wording under the disabled sign is too small to be read.
8. 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.
9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
XXXXXXX
XXXXXX
27th October 20180 -
I would suggest these changes.
I crossed out your #3 as you said you ''got a NTK'', so was there any sort of PCN on the windscreen? If there was a 'NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE' piece of rubbish that night on the windscreen, then do add your #3 back in lower down!2. It is denied that any contravention of terms occurred, or that the unconscionable sum of £160 represents 'monies due' by any reasonable interpretation. It is further denied that the vehicle was parked in an area that was clearly and transparently marked/signed as a 'restricted/prohibited area' or 'Turning Circle and Taxi Drop' only.
3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date on double yellow lines. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver, who parked in good faith based on the markings seen. The passenger was the Defendant's father, who is disabled and displayed his blue badge.
[STRIKE]3. 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 yellow/black 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. [/STRIKE]
4. In line with the Equality Act 2010, and the specific meanings of signs and lines set out in the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Highway Code, a blue badge holder may park on double yellow lines for up to 3 hours. [STRIKE]on public land[/STRIKE].
4.1. If the Claimant intended to make the area a no-stopping zone, it was open to them to use double red lines (defining a red route) or double yellows with kerb blips and signage with operational times (defining a loading ban where blue badge holders cannot stop). The Claimant's own evidence photos of the signs (lit up with a torch by whoever took the image) in fact show that their intention is to allow loading and unloading.
4.2. Thus, even if the signs were readable, which is denied, it is reasonable to conclude a blue badge holder can park there and the fault lies with the Claimant's lines & signs. The doctrine of contra proferentem must apply, and the interpretation that most favours the consumer must prevail.
4.3. It is averred that double yellow lines alone here are misleading and ambiguous, given that such lines positively offer parking for 3 hours to blue badge holders, and in this regard the markings were deceiving. Further, it was unclear that it was private land because the roadway appears to be public highway with a parking layby and inset kerb, and the signs were unlit.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you so much!
I have amended, printed, signed and emailed it to CCBC.0 -
Hi All
I have my court date on Tuesday and I got this pack in the post yesterday.
My main points when i speak in court will be that the double yellow lines are deceitful as they imitate double yellow lines implemented by the council, which confused me into thinking i can park there with a disabled passenger.
Secondly the section showing the disabled sign it extremely small and has tiny words saying 'not exempt' if they wanted to make it clear they would have put a cross going through the sign. It was night time and extremely hard to see the sign, never mind the tiny writing at the bottom.
Please see there defence attached.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks x
Pictures of the pack they sent me with their witness statement:
https://ibb.co/NrKLwrm
https://ibb.co/YQ2Lg9Y
https://ibb.co/n35FMRT
https://ibb.co/tpRQ285
https://ibb.co/zJMyfy6
https://ibb.co/bXnzNZh
https://ibb.co/7QN0F7h
https://ibb.co/V3HCHYk
https://ibb.co/QMXtZcH
https://ibb.co/949TFpF
https://ibb.co/qCW8c7K
https://ibb.co/Fh8Gw5z
https://ibb.co/Fh8Gw5z
https://ibb.co/FV6dPtP
https://ibb.co/D5fwSMJ
https://ibb.co/gg0CWD9
https://ibb.co/4jp6ngq
https://ibb.co/rcw3znC
https://ibb.co/x7wQXxW
https://ibb.co/YTJ4nPx
https://ibb.co/q0x8g6G
https://ibb.co/98x9gj9
https://ibb.co/PNX5Mdn
https://ibb.co/jhQSr5t
https://ibb.co/H48DTGY
https://ibb.co/pvyfD15
https://ibb.co/5cKRR31
https://ibb.co/9VX85vz
https://ibb.co/0GYMdV4
https://ibb.co/qNCpkPL
https://ibb.co/BjhQTr4
https://ibb.co/SJS0HsS
https://ibb.co/FzQFX7Z
https://ibb.co/S3t7N4L0 -
What evidence and Witness Statement did you file & serve this month, as per the Court Directions on the letter giving you the court date?I have my court date on Tuesday and I got this pack in the post yesterday.
They are late filing & serving theirs.
Have you filed & served yours though? What did you put forward (not your defence)?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards