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!
VCS Money Claims Online Defence
pegasus_1
Posts: 9 Forumite
Hi
I am new to the site but have read the newbies threads and sent off my Acknowledgement of Service and am now preparing the defence. Basically I bought a ticket and returned 15 minutes late and now have the court papers for £160 in respect of a contavention of a Charge Notice. I have looked through all the threads and have found a defence which nearly fits my situation. The only point i am unsure of is point 5 as this was for a specific defence. If I remove this is the rest enough to use. I have checked the car park and there are number of signages dotted about.
Any comments would be greratly appreciated.
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sumclaimed, or at all.
2. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN')was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. ThisClaimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in ayellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOTa Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of thepremature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note thatthe Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver wasnot served with a document that created any liability for any chargewhatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.1. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver was properly informedabout any parking charge, by a CN.
3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendantwas the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertionsindicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and issimply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply withCivil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements ofPractice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms werebreached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legalbasis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractualliability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driverof the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant,whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signagesets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of bindingany reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gate andreads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract withVehicle Control Services'.
5.1. Vehicle registration XXXX has not enteredpast the gate and therefore is not entered into a contract with Vehicle ControlServices.
5.2. Even if the Court is minded to considerthat the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offeravailable; there is no licence to park.
5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landownerto pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parkingcharge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sumin damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car totrespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not havepursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will beadduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisationfrom the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', andto pursue payment by means of litigation.
6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybridnotes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing theregistered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set outin paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation ofthe Claimant's principal.
6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was inexistence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that theClaimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedureset out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where therewas no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, andas set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof ofits authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor theother, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
7. The POFA,at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from thekeeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. Theclaim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation isgiven, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no causeof 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 itscase management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
I am new to the site but have read the newbies threads and sent off my Acknowledgement of Service and am now preparing the defence. Basically I bought a ticket and returned 15 minutes late and now have the court papers for £160 in respect of a contavention of a Charge Notice. I have looked through all the threads and have found a defence which nearly fits my situation. The only point i am unsure of is point 5 as this was for a specific defence. If I remove this is the rest enough to use. I have checked the car park and there are number of signages dotted about.
Any comments would be greratly appreciated.
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sumclaimed, or at all.
2. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN')was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. ThisClaimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in ayellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOTa Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of thepremature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note thatthe Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver wasnot served with a document that created any liability for any chargewhatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.1. Accordingly, it is denied that the driver was properly informedabout any parking charge, by a CN.
3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendantwas the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertionsindicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and issimply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply withCivil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements ofPractice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms werebreached.
4. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legalbasis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractualliability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driverof the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant,whether express, implied, or by conduct.
5. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signagesets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of bindingany reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gate andreads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract withVehicle Control Services'.
5.1. Vehicle registration XXXX has not enteredpast the gate and therefore is not entered into a contract with Vehicle ControlServices.
5.2. Even if the Court is minded to considerthat the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offeravailable; there is no licence to park.
5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landownerto pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parkingcharge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sumin damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car totrespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEyeLtd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not havepursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will beadduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisationfrom the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', andto pursue payment by means of litigation.
6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by theProtection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybridnotes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing theregistered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set outin paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation ofthe Claimant's principal.
6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was inexistence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that theClaimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedureset out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where therewas no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, andas set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof ofits authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor theother, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
7. The POFA,at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from thekeeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. Theclaim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation isgiven, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
8. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no causeof 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 itscase management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.
0
Comments
-
What is the Date of Issue on your Claim Form?0
-
It's the 25 of September, I believe with sending the AOS I have until the 28th October to respond.0
-
Yes, almost right. With 28 Oct being a Sunday, you get an extra day.It's the 25 of September, I believe with sending the AOS I have until the 28th October to respond.
Hopefully you did the AoS before 14th October?
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.
Just over a week to go, 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 -
Was going to use the MCOL website but will follow your instructions. Thank for the steer. Hopefully with help from here I can get my defence sorrted and sent off.0
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
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards