Served with Court claim by VCS

mooney89

HIi all, thanks for the advice RE the info i need to provide in order to seek out some advice. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure i've missed the deadline for submitting a defence to court, so i'd appreciate some advice as to whether it's still possible/worth it trying to fight this in court, or whether I should get in touch with VCS and negotiate. Below are the relevant details that might help., and here's a link to a google drive folder where you can access the images. Just remove the space between the 'h' and the 'ttps' and then copy and paste.
h ttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1GJiGINslCWdS6-wmzPVAcj80KW-1hXtc
Date of issue of claim form: 15 October 2018 (I've acknowledged service of this claim online as per NEWbie thread instructions though sadly I think too many days have now passed for me to submit a defence, leaving me unsure as to what my options are. I've attached pictures of the relevant details suggested below.

POC, verbatim: The Claimant's claim is for the sum of £160 being monies due from the defendant to the claimant in respect of a Charge Notice (CN) for a contravention on 07/01/2018 at Flora Street Retail park (Sheffield).
The CN related to a **Make** **Model** registration *******. The Terms of the CN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue Date to pay the CN, but the Defendant failed to do so. Despite demand having been made the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% at the same rate up to the date of Judgement or earlier payment.

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and i am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.
Signed Simon Renshaw-Smith.

• Issued with a ticket earlier this year in a retail carpark in Sheffield for my car having been parked outside of a marked bay, as other cars had done. At no point have I confirmed who was driving that day.
• Initially VSC got in touch to a previous address, meaning that by the time I had updated my DVLA details after a house move, the correspondence now claimed that I owe £160.
• Responded to VCS following advice taken from this forum.
• Issued with a succession of debt collection letters offering reduced repayment etc which I've totally ignored.
• Issued with a letter before claim which I've ignored - I realise this may be a mistake.
• Issued with a service of court claim - I've followed instructions to acknowledge receipt of service, to apply for more time to construct a defence.

Any advice on next steps and the appropriate templates to use to construct a defence would be really warmly appreciated. Equally if and when the details of this case become apparent and it becomes clear that I don't have a leg to stand on, I'd appreciate anyone saving me time by telling me it's not worth fighting!


Many thanks in advance,

Redx

there are no templates for a defence on here, a defence is bespoke, no "one size fits all"

you can look at the examples linked in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread post #2, for inspiration, then draft your own bespoke defence and post it below for critique

if you want legal advice on here, you may not get it as this is not a legal advice forum , but some people trained in legal cases do come here from time to time (but they may not gather the info required to make a determination in your case, that is for a judge to decide)

and as you have not put the POC or DATE OF ISSUE in your opening post, how can anyone determine anything at all ?

also, you have not posted any pics of signage, no landowner documents or contracts, nothing about this case, no evidence , nothing

this may sound harsh, but its like asking what the weather on Mars will be like at christmas, without anyone having access to satellite data , or even a map of mars

we realise you may not have all what I said, but then that is what a SAR is for and the GDPR has been in force for 6 months or so now. so you need to be pro-active , not reactive


nobody here will write this defence for you, I can guarantee you that, so post the POC and ISSUE DATE and then post your proposed draft defence, for critique, start by studying recent defences written or honed by member BARGEPOLE

mooney89

Thanks for the reply. I shall collect all that info and post it here - can you confirm whether there is anything that would be inadvisable to post in terms of protecting my anonymity from VCS ? I've read in various places that they tend to monitor these forums.


Thanks again,

Redx

name , address , VRM details, pcn ref , MCOL claim number , MCOL login password details etc

KeithP

As suggested by Redx earlier, please can you post the Date of Issue from your Claim Form?

mooney89

thanks for your help - i've updated my post above - any more advice would be greatly appreciated!

mooney89

thanks for your help, I've updated my post above as per your suggestions - any more advice would be warmly welcomed.

The_Deep

Is a solicitor involved? If not, the most they can claim is the original charge.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will should become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.


ls

KeithP

mooney89 wrote: »

Date of issue of claim form: 15 October 2018 (I've acknowledged service of this claim online as per NEWbie thread instructions though sadly I think too many days have now passed for me to submit a defence, leaving me unsure as to what my options are.

Your options now are somewhat limited.
Your Defence should've been filed before 4pm on Monday 19th November.

First you should check on MCOL whether a Default Judgment has been sought by the Claimant.

If it has then you should consider paying it to avoid it affecting your creditworthiness.

If it has not then consider filing a Defence this weekend.


If you choose to Defend, then 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 words 'Defence - Urgent' 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.

KeithP

You should obliterate your MCOL password from that image of your Claim Form.

mooney89

i've checked MCOL and there is no update since they received my acknowledgement of service. i've prepared a draft defence using one of BARGEPOLE's defences to VCS (which i assume was successful) leading with the main defence that the PCN referred to in various documents from VCS isn't a PCN at all, as stated on the original ticket issued, all of which i can prove with the letters they've sent. Some feedback and suggested amendments would be great, before i get this sent off this weekend. fingers crossed.

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

2. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car - registration ****** of which the Defendant was at the time of the alleged contravention the registered keeper - 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'. the piece of paper attached to the said car did in this case bear the same exact legend. 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.

2.1. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. 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 the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.


4. Furthermore, 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 damaged and signage which attempts to set out in detail the contract is attached to lampposts set at well above head height in very small print, and is not sufficiently clear enough to read from any angle, by any reasonable person's standards. Furthermore, the only sign that is visible by any reasonable person's standards is located at head height on the left of the entrance to the car park, and this signage fails to give any significant detail on the terms of the contract specified in unclear signage elsewhere.

5. Furthermore, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.1. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not a ' parking charge notice', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. Signage at the car park specified in the particulars of claim states clearly that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, 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 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 is 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.

The Defendant believes all of the information above to be true.

Signed: