Please help - county court notice from vehicle control services

KeithP

Ghollins806039 wrote: »

KeithP wrote: »

Any answers to the questions in post #3 above?

Apologies i didnt quote you in the below please read my response

But still you haven't answered those questions asked nearly three weeks ago.

The clock is ticking....

Do you want help or not?

Hollyfshaw888

I will start again...

After the county court claim (from county court business center Northampton) i responded by the issue date saying i want to defend the claim.

I then got a letter yesterday from vehicle control services issuing a notice of recovery saying they have been awarded a CCJ and i have to pay.

I was shocked because they didn’t give me the time to write my defense which is when i looked into this county court centre in Northampton and many people have said they are fraudulent.

Can you advise me what should I do next? I do not believe it was a legitimate county court claim letter.

KeithP

Ok, so we now know where this Claim Form came from. Thanks.

I promise this will be that last time I ask, but can you please tell us the Issue Date printed on that Claim Form?

Hollyfshaw888

9th Jan 2019.

KeithP

Ghollins806039 wrote: »

9th Jan 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th February 2019 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away. You should post here your proposed Defence for appraisal today.


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.

Coupon-mad

i looked into this county court centre in Northampton and many people have said they are fraudulent.

Who the heck said the CCBC is fraudulent? Forget those stupid forums! This is simply the court processing centre for online claims. Not 'fraudulent'.

But you then said this:

After the county court claim (from county court business center Northampton) i responded by the issue date saying i want to defend the claim.

I then got a letter yesterday from vehicle control services issuing a notice of recovery saying they have been awarded a CCJ and i have to pay.

So, did you acknowledge the claim too late? You had 14 days.

Hollyfshaw888

I acknowledged it on the 25th jan. and they have still sent me a letter saying they have been awarded a CCJ already - how can that be?

I have drafted a response its not 100% complete. I hope to post it today/ early tomorrow. Have been delayed in completing it.

Le_Kirk

This is from the MCOL website, so, if you did AOS on 25th January, it looks like you did it in time, so cannot understand the claim that you have a default judgement.

You have a limited time to respond to a claim against you

You should respond to this claim within 14 days of the date of service. You can respond to the claim using this online service, alternatively, the response pack may be used for this purpose. The date of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown on the front of the Claim Form N1.

Umkomaas

Phone the court on Monday to check the position.

Hollyfshaw888

Any advice / changes to the below would be much appreciated..

Claimant: xx
Defendant: xx
Defendant DOB: xx

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

2. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer).

3. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how any terms were breached. Indeed the PoC are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and CPR 1.4. It vaguely refers to “a charge notice for a contravention” incurred on [DATE]. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleges to have been breached, for example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract'.

4. The Defendant was residing at [address] during the period [xx] to [xx] and during this residential period, the managing agents foisted enforced parking conditions at the estate through Vehicle Control Services Limited without any formal notification to the residents.

5. The Notice To Keeper (NTK) refers to the ‘contravention reason’ as "parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit” however, it was not possible for any residents or visitors to purchase a ticket and as stated above there was no formal notification that the permitted underground resident’s car park had extended to this outside area.

6. The PoC refer to the material location as “xx car park”. The vehicle was not parked within the resident’s car park. The vehicle was merely parked on a roadway kerb beside the resident’s building. This road is primarily used for access into i) two separate resident underground car parks and ii) a public leisure centre and before the restrictions were put into place by the managing agents this parking area was operating as a public highway with no parking restrictions.

7. The PCN was issued on a poorly signed road stating it was 'private land' however, point 6 stated it was open to the public and parking was not being enforced by any restrictive terms. I refer to the IPC Code of Practice (CoP) Part E, highlighting that adequate and clear entrance signs are required. The only signs were sparse and set back on walls of buildings, there was nothing to suggest what areas the signs covered; the road, the leisure centre car park or the complete kerb where the defendant’s car was situated. There was no red hatched area or no stopping zone signs on the curb on signposts declaring the kerb area was within the restricted zone and there was no information about how to purchase a permit.

8. The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such conduct is ‘roboclaims’ which is against the public interest, unfair on unrepresented consumers and parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim.

9. Any ‘charge’ or terms on signage on the day was not seen but even if the court believes signs were displayed, the terms were in such small print as to be illegible, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

10. It is submitted that (apart from properly incurred court fees) any added solicitors fees are simply numbers made up out of thin air, and are an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which would not be recoverable in any event.

13. It is submitted that the Claimant is merely an agent acting ‘on behalf of’ the landowner who would be the only proper claimant. Strict proof is required of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this Claimant, to allow them the right to form contracts and to sue in their name.

14. Even if this is produced, it is submitted that there is no contract offered to drivers not displaying a permit, so alleged 'unauthorised' parking (denied) can only be an event falling under the tort of trespass.

15. As was confirmed in the Beavis case, ParkingEye could not have claimed any sum at all for trespass, whereby only a party in possession of title in the land could claim nominal damages suffered (and there were none in this material case).

16. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 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.

17. The court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

18. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.