VCS county court defence help please

Christie266

Hi everybody, this is my first time posting (however I have spent a little time reading and trying to follow advice so far) I have received a County Court letter, completed aos and need to submit a defence, if you could please take a look at the below and let me know if you could suggest any improvements/ potential problems I would be so grateful!

Background: Vehicle overstayed in a free car park (Berkeley Centre, Sheffield) have replied to all previous letters asking for certain amounts of info, which have never been answered and just bombarded with the usual pay us now templates. NTK was received late, and VCS only have the info that we are the keeper of the vehicle.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant asserts that they have no liability to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.

2. The Defendant denies entering into any contract with the Claimant. The Claim relates to an alleged debt relating to a parking charge from a driver's alleged contravention of contract. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but it is not known who was driving and the Claimant has provided no evidence in this regard. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to the Claimant. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured.

4. 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. An operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12 of the PoFA.
The claimant has failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates a mandatory timeline and wording:-

The notice must be given by —
(a) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.”

The applicable section here is (b) as the NTK was delivered by post. Furthermore, paragraph 9(5) states:
“The relevant period… is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended”
The NTK sent to the Defendant as Registered Keeper was issued on the 31/05/2018 this is 19 days after the alleged contravention had taken place (12/05/2018.)

9(4)(b). This means that The Claimant failed to act in time for keeper liability to apply.

4. The Letter before Claim does not state whether the Claimant believes 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 failed to reply to subsequent requests for this information.) 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 LBC also fails to identify the facts that caused a charge to arise. The Claimant states: breaching of terms and conditions , however the Claimant has failed to provide a copy of these terms and conditions. The LBC then further states Reason: 80) Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted. I refute the eligibility of this claim on the grounds that
i) This alleged breach could only have been made by the driver of the vehicle, as these terms and conditions have so far only been displayed to the driver (apparently on entry to the site) and could only have been accepted by the driver.
ii) the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence regarding the amount of time the vehicle spent PARKED upon the premises. Both photos provided by the claimant show the vehicle in motion and I do not believe it to be an unreasonable assumption that the vehicle may have remained in motion, entering and exiting the car park throughout the additional claimed 18 minute period. Therefore I see no evidence of this alleged breach.

7. Should the Claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim then it is denied that the defendant was properly informed about any parking charge. Therefore, it is denied that the Claimant sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

8. The Claimant requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause. The Claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original parking charge. It is believed that the employee who drew up the paperwork is remunerated, and the particulars of claim are templates, so it is simply not credible that £60 costs were incurred. The Defendant believes that Vehicle Control Services Ltd has artificially inflated this claim. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to any interest whatsoever. The claimant has not explained how the claim has increased from the original parking notice to £185.00 minus the court costs of £25.00. If the Claimant alleges that they claim the cost of its in-house administration, these cannot be recovered - they are staff performing the task that they have been employed for and essential to the Claimant's business plan.

9. With no POFA and no law of agency to rely on, the Claimant has no cause of action.

35. It can also be noted that the Claimant has failed to act on Notice 18 requesting further information with regard to the claim. As requested twice previously (included in the defence).

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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


Thank you x

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Was it sent from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

The_Deep

Have you complained to your MP?

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

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 of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially 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 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.

Christie266

Hi,

Ita the County Court Business Centre St. Katherinea House and is dated 10 Dec

Thank you

KeithP

Christie266 wrote: »

Hi,

Ita the County Court Business Centre St. Katherinea House and is dated 10 Dec

Thank you

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


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

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. 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'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.