Motorbike County Court Claim - Charge Notice

LenaWoods

The fees read as follows:

Amount claimed: 160.00
Court fee: 25.00
Legal representative's costs: 0.00
Total amount: 185.00

.....so that's £85 extra than they can claim for right?
but i have 2 x separate letters so i guess it's double that really.
i will look into adding that extra section you've mentioned
did point 3 and 4 make sense? I really don't understand them, but they were included in a similar situation!

Thanks for your help!

Coupon-mad

Legal representative's costs: 0.00

But on the right, in the boxes, have they then added solicitors' costs of fifty quid?

but i have 2 x separate letters so i guess it's double that really.

Two claims? Then your defence needs to handle that, and ask for the claims to be merged so that there will only be one set of costs, one WS and evidence pack to do and one hearing.

Same as several defences this past week that I've commented on. Hmmm, search this forum for posts by me, with the keywords:

eye-watering

and you will have the wording you need to use. And yes the total costs they've added should talk about the FULL (added together) sums.

Yes, #3 and #4 make sense.

LenaWoods

Thanks for your help

There's no mention of solicitor's fee

Should I mention the merging of claims as the first point, and include the full amount as both in my defense?

Cheers

LenaWoods

Righty, here's my more updated Defence, please let me know if you can see anything that needs changing or reshuffling before i submit it. I only have a couple of days left!

Also should i submit this for both claims, even though i've asked for them to be merged? Thanks muchly!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant is a resident of XXXX and holds valid permits for vehicle parking on the land surrounding the private car-park. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim has absolutely no boundary markings and consists of a relatively small number of poorly marked parking spaces, following an unmarked road. The unmarked road is located amongst land forming a much larger, council monitored parking area (for which my parking permits are valid) and is therefore indistinguishable. The vehicle mentioned above was parked outside of any marked bays within the actual ‘carpark’ area further along the unmarked road, and was not obstructing any vehicle, property or emergency exit at any time. Given the lack of clarity regarding where this car-park actually begins and where the larger council area ends, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem principle.
3. There are a total of two outstanding Charge Notices which the defendant has requested to be amalgamated and served one claim. However, this claim does not include both, and is therefore escalating costs and wasting the court's time.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

6. Further and in the alternative, 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 sign merely states to ‘display a valid permit inside the front windscreen of your vehicle at all times’. This contract cannot therefore apply to motorbikes as they do not have an enclosed ‘windscreen’ to display the permit on and are open bodied, which means even if a permit is displayed, several common external forces will lead to it easily becoming removed, without any fault of the registered keeper.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is far too small to be read from a passing vehicle, or from the distance the registered vehicle was parked, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9.1. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (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 for two PCNs, a maximum of £200 depending on the Claimant's full compliance with the POFA and establishing a breach of a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' from adequately prominent, large lettering terms on copious and clear signage. The claim includes an additional £170, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

9.2. This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £370.00, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the presiding Judge will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it cannot.

9.3. It was held in the Supreme Court in!Beavis!(where £85 was claimed, and no more) that a private parking charge already includes a very significant and high percentage in profit and more than covers the costs of running an automated regime of template letters. It is also a fact that debt collection agencies act on a no-win-no-fee basis for parking operators, so no such costs have been incurred in truth. Thus, there can be no 'damages' to pile on top of any parking charge claim, nor 'indemnity costs if applicable', whatever that cut&paste phrase may mean. The Claimant knows this, as do their solicitors who charge little or no fee to IPC members, given the connection between Vehicle Control Services Limited and the IPC Trade Body, and the Defendant asks that the Court takes judicial notice of this repeated abuse of consumers rights and remedies, caused by IPC/Vehicle Control Services Limited' clients artificially inflating their robo-claims.

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, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

LenaWoods

Also does anyone know if it's ok to sign the doc via pdf signature? I don't have a printer/ scanner!

LenaWoods

Hi again,

I'm preparing my evidence to submit before the court hearing in September, can anybody advise me of the layout I should use for pictures, font, making written points etc? I need to have it all ready in just under two weeks.

Thanks

LenaWoods

Hi All

I am in the process of writing up my Witness Statement in regards to two Charge Notices I've received from VCS Ltd. However, I've noticed that the Claimant's reply to my Defence states an incorrect Claim Number at the top of the provided document.

Because there were initially two claims, they both became consolidated under one claim number, but VCS Ltd are using the old, incorrect number in their correspondence.

Should i mention this in my witness statement? Is it relevant to future court proceedings?

Many thanks

waamo

LenaWoods wrote: »

Hi All

I am in the process of writing up my Witness Statement in regards to two Charge Notices I've received from VCS Ltd. However, I've noticed that the Claimant's reply to my Defence states an incorrect Claim Number at the top of the provided document.

Because there were initially two claims, they both became consolidated under one claim number, but VCS Ltd are using the old, incorrect number in their correspondence.

Should i mention this in my witness statement? Is it relevant to future court proceedings?

Many thanks

I wouldn't bother about it. Whilst it's sloppy it's a simple transcribing error that a judge is unlikely to worry about.

Abuse of process is a much more salient argument. Have you read up on it yet?

LenaWoods

Thanks

No I haven't, I'm currently reading through the POFA Schedule 4 and IPC Code of Practice using their definitions to support my WS right now, do you have any relevant links regarding abuse of process? I will post my Witness Statement soon so people can advise me on what works and what doesn't!

Egbert_Nobacon

This expands on your 9.1 and 9.2 defence.
Obviously number paragraphs accordingly.

ABUSE OF PROCESS

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

- Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

- Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

The Judge stated:-
''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

- In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

- There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

- The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.