Comments please on VCS defence I am going to use.

pegasus_1

Hi

I am new to the site but have read the newbies threads and sent off myAcknowledgement of Service and am now preparing the defence which is due on 29/10/18. Basically I boughta ticket and returned 15 minutes late and now have the court papers for £160 inrespect of a contavention of a Charge Notice. I have looked through all thethreads and have found a defence which nearly fits my situation. The only pointi am unsure of is point 5 as this was for a specific defence. If I remove thisor part of it is the rest enough to use. I have checked the car park and there are number ofsignages 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 termswere breached.

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 ofbinding any reasonable person reading them. The signage is attached to a gateand reads: '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 necessaryauthorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'chargenotices', and to 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 theprocedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNswhere there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR cameracar parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put tostrict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither onething 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 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.

KeithP

So we now have three threads about this one incident.

Please ask a board guide to merge your threads.

Thanks.