VCS County Claim Form

sgill96

Hi All,

Been spending all afternoon trying to get my head around procedure. Have read the newbies thread and think I have got the gist and my appropriate section. Sorry if this is inappropriate it is all a lot to take in.
I will try to give a brief overview in the hope that I am writing the correct defence.

- I rent a flat with parking in the city centre. I have an allocated space that my permit denotes. I parked in this space. I was given a charge on 13/5/18 at 6am and another ticket on 14/5/18.
- They said I hadn't shown my permit. The photos they took and sent to me clearly show my permit visible in the photo. I have lived her for 2.5 years with no previous issues.
-I appealed on my parking charge website. Rejected both.
- Northampton County Court letter has come through. 1 claim form for each charge, so double the work for myself.
- I am using Coupon Mad's own parking space defence letter as my template. (cant post link to it as new user)

is there anything else I should do?

I am really annoyed - the photos they have clearly show my permit but they say they can't see the parking space number and they gave me two tickets within 25 hours of one another which is just ridiculous.

KeithP

What are the Issue Dates on each of your Claim Forms?

Did they come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton or from somewhere else?

sgill96

Issue dates are both the 20th December 2018 .
Both issued from County Court Business Centre in Northampton.

KeithP

sgill96 wrote: »

Issue dates are both the 20th December 2018 .
Both issued from County Court Business Centre in Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th December, you have until Tuesday 8th January to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 22nd January 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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.

sgill96

Thanks for your help!

I've now done the AOS for both claim forms. I am yet receive a claimants questionnaire. I have written part of my defence, who would I be best to get this checked by on here?

KeithP

sgill96 wrote: »

I am yet receive a claimants questionnaire.

I'll assume you mean the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire?
The nearer you get to court, the more important it is to get the terminology right.

You will not get that until you have filed your Defence.

sgill96 wrote: »

I have written part of my defence, who would I be best to get this checked by on here?

Post your draft Defence for perusal when you are ready.

sgill96

Thanks for that! Here's draft which I will be submitting for both the separate court claim forms.

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim No: XYZ
Between

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD
(Claimant)

-and-

DR. XYZ
(Defendant)



DEFENCE

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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 13 & 14th May 2018. The claimant gives the reason “83) PARKED WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID TICKET/PERMIT”. This is evidently incorrect as the photos displayed on the demand for payment letters clearly show the valid permit that I have held whilst being a resident at this address for two and a half years.

2.1. The Claimant issued two parking charges within a 25 hour period. The defendants vehicle did not move during this time it was parked as the defendant was residing in his home address. This defence is in response to both claim forms as there is no difference in circumstance between the two charges.

2.2. The defendant irrefutably refuses to pay the charge for the alleged offence, The claimant has unfairly acted by issuing two charges within 25 hours knowing full well that the resident at these addresses work normal working hours thus cars are parked prior to these hours. The claimant has issued tickets at these times on purpose to illicit the most profit from these charges.


3. The Particulars refer to the material location as “Royal Quay Car Park”. The Defendant has, since 1st July 2016, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Parking Space 96 at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The outside car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents.


5. There are no terms within the lease requiring to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £185.00, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.






(Defendant)

02/01/2019 (Date)

The_Deep

I would flesh out para 5 a bit, mention primacy of contract, interference with AST rights to quiet enjoyment of premises under Landlord and Tenants Act, read some of these,

https://www.bing.com/search?q=primacy+od+contract+prankster&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-gb&httpsmsn=1&refig=7d34025c3d794ae59bb2d1b443c2e96f&PC=ACTS&sp=-1&pq=primacy+od+contract+pra&sc=0-23&qs=n&sk=&cvid=7d34025c3d794ae59bb2d1b443c2e96f

and complain to your landlord, the Managing agents, and our 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.

sgill96

Here's updated copy. Thanks for your help. Any other advice would be greatly appreciated?

Is it OK to send the exact same defence for both the county claims?
_____________________________________

IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE
Claim No:
Between

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD
(Claimant)

-and-

DR. XYZ
(Defendant)



DEFENCE

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

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 13 & 14th May 2018. The claimant gives the reason “83) PARKED WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID TICKET/PERMIT”. This is evidently incorrect as the photos displayed on the demand for payment letters clearly show the valid yellow permit that I have held whilst being a resident at this address for two and a half years.

2.1 This defence is in response to both claim forms as there is no difference in circumstance between the two charges.

2.2. The Claimant issued two parking charges within a 25 hour period. The defendants vehicle did not move during this time it was parked as the defendant was residing in his home address.

2.3. The defendant irrefutably refuses to pay the charge for the alleged offence, The claimant has unfairly acted by issuing two charges within 25 hours of each other knowing full well that these are times when residents are residing in their homes.

2.4. The claimant has issued tickets at these times on purpose to illicit the most profit from these charges.


3. The Particulars refer to the material location as “Royal Quay Car Park”. The Defendant has, since 1st July 2016, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Parking Space 96 at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The outside car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to residents via a parking permit.

4.1 The parking permit expired on 24/12/2016 and the ground owner issued letters to residents that the permits are not going to be re-issued.

4.2 The ground owner stated that the permits will still be valid so long as residents park in the space named on the permit. The defendant has done so since this the permit technically expired.

4.3 The defendant again reiterates the fact that they have parked in accordance with these regulations.


5. There are no terms within the lease requiring to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant.

5.1 The claimant is interfering with my right to quiet enjoyment of the premises under the Landlords and Tenants 1987.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6.1 The claimants signage states “If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details clearly visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times”. The defendant reiterates and draws attention to the photos taken by VCS that clearly show the yellow permit in the passenger seat front windscreen area. The defendant has not broken any of these conditions hence forth has not entered into a contract and therefore does refutes the claim.

7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant continues to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added additional sums to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £185.00, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.






(Defendant)

14/09/2018 (Date)

Keithgabriel

Thankyou! This is very useful.Im at the stage of compiling the defence from a Royal Quay ticket.
What stage are you at . Have you been to court?

Keithgabriel

Well that post was dated Jan 3rd so your sarcasm is not very helpful