County Court Case - Help Needed

Redneck61

Forgive me for the lack of information, I’m struggling to make up a defence and don’t want to copy and paste any others that I have found on this forum.

I have received a court case from VCS - I have already acknowledged so need to submit a defence. It comes from a while back where the driver thought it’d be okay to park late, early hours into the night in a quiet car park outside of business hours however received a dodgy looking yellow and black leaflet. It said “ attention document enclosed, this is not a parking charge notice”.

Also guys the thing is, even after reading the newbies sticky thread.. I’m not sure how to word my defence and what I need to write, would anyone be able to help me please. And any information you guys need I’ll reply straight away.

Thank you, and if need be I can delete this post and start again ( I know I don’t have any defence ready for you guys to change and advise what’s wrong).

Redneck61

And guys, I have every document that they sent out to me including NTK, the original dodgy yellow and black leaflet (this is not a parking charge notice).

I also sent them a letter at the LBC stage, I sent this using information on the newbies sticky thread.

Le_Kirk

What did the particulars of claim (POC) state? Why is the PPC chasing you, i.e. for what reason? Defences are referenced in the NEWBIE section HERE -scroll down until you see this: -

Here are some cases won or in progress:

Depending upon what the POC says, you need to adjust your defence accordingly. If, for example, it is for parking outside of a marked bay, your defence is that you didn't park outside of a marked bay and here is a photograph (submitted later with Witness Statement), if they say you didn't pay, you say, I did and here is a copy of my ticket etc....

Use one of the concise defences I pointed you to and add bits in the same style that counter what the POC states.

Redneck61

Thank you @Le_kirk for your reply! And also for pointing me towards the defences. I have found one on there directly relating to my case (VCS).

Okay so the particulars of the claim...

- They are after x sum in respect of a charge notice (CN) for a contravention on (....) at (.....).
- The terms of the CN allowed the defendant 28 days from the issue to pay the CN but the defendant failed to do so.
- The claimant seeks recovery of the CN and interest under section 69 of the county courts act 1984.


Much appreciated

Redx

so what was any NTK talking about ?

failure to pay ?
no permit ?
what ?

ie:- if no contract to park was formed due to forbidding signage, then its trespass because the driver did not agree a parking contract

I assume they failed POFA ? if so , was the driver identified at any point ?
if not, then POFA2012 is the main argument because they have failed to hold the keeper liable


they have probably inflated the charges above say £180 or so , in which case you object to added charges like legal fees (but not the court fees)

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

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

ShakeItOff

Have you sent a Subject Access Request to VCS's DPO? If not, look on the NEWBIES thread for the Legal Beagles template.

While you may not want to copy and paste someone else's defence (indeed, it may not be relevant), do use them to help tweak and form yours. When you're ready, post it up for comment

Redneck61

So the NTK that came through the post came titled both PCN and NTK. It said contravention reason : parked in a restricted or prohibited area. And they haven’t identified the driver, rather they are pursuing the the registered keeper.


Okay so the issue date is 18 Feb and yes it did come from the County court business centre in Northampton.


And yes I have sent a SAR a few days ago, haven’t received any reply to date. I previously, when it was the LBC stage I contacted VCS and they replied back to me with all the points I raised; replying to each one. (I used help of the newbies thread of what to write with a template I used) here is their reply if it helps:

- They are satisfied the LBC meets the requirements of the pre action protocol and contains sufficient information.

- WHETHER WE ARE PURSUING AS THE DRIVER OR KEEPER AND WHETHER WE ARE RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS ON SCHEDULE 4 OF POFA
- They are pursuing as the registered keeper and they are using schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 act which entitles operators to pursue the registered keeper where the drivers details haven’t been disclosed. They are satisfied that their NTK meets schedule 4 of POFA.
- In the alternative they will seek to rely on the law of Agency which deals with contractual relationships that involve a person called the agent that is authorised to act on behalf of another, called the principle to create legal relations with a third party. Applying the legal principle to your case, any other driver must have had authority to drive the vehicle and therefore make you liable for any parking charges incurred whilst doing so.

- DETAILS OF THE CLAIM/EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION
- The vehicle bearing the reg no: ..... was observers in a breach of terms and conditions at .... on the .... This claim is for a BREACH of contract and NOT trespass - [THEY GOT MY REG NO. WRONG IN THIS LINE]

- PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE:
- There is no requirement or obligation for us to take photographic evidence of the driver and we are therefore not obligated to provide the same. Our evidence is based on photographs of the vehicle which confirm that the vehicle was observed in contravention of the terms of conditions of the private land. [They still didn’t provide any evidence of my vehicle here].

Further to this they also provided breakdown of costs claimed, didn’t provide copy of contract as it is a commercially sensitive document.
They said that the contract doesn’t have to be in writing and can be created (they referenced ParkingEye vs Beavis 2015.

And finally they provided copies of the signage displayed at the site as well as a labelled google maps satellite image, they said that their sign meets IPC codes of practice.

KeithP

Redneck61 wrote: »

Okay so the issue date is 18 Feb and yes it did come from the County court business centre in Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th February, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 25th March 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over a month 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.

Coupon-mad

Hope you've spotted there is a VCS example defence in the NEWBIES thread all about 'not a parking charge' cases and how this is not only a misleading series of letters but also fails to meet the POFA Schedule 4 for keeper liability.

It's there for people like you to use, copy almost verbatim & adapt the facts a bit.

Redneck61

Just got round to sorting this out! Had a tremendously busy week

It's amazing how the defence for VCS in the Newbies thread corresponds exactly with my situation and the case against me! I have simply copied and pasted the defence and brought it back here to show you guys. Basically I striked through the lines that I felt - didn't go in line with my situation. I hope you can help me alter it.

And also before I forget the scammers managed to get more time for the SAR request - in brief terms they said I didn't provide the Reg No or PCN No so it gives them more time from the date I provide them.

Much appreciated and Regards,

******************************************************************

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, [STRIKE]to be parked on the material date on a public road, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.[/STRIKE]
[Not sure whether to include this part, I was inside the car park and received the fake CN when I returned. The car park (at the time i parked there) belonged to a shop which closes around 8PM.... I parked there around 11PM]

2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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 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.

4. 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.

[STRIKE]5. 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 signage is attached to a gate and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'. [/STRIKE]
[They had signage in around three areas of the car park, so every angle was covered. I do have copies of the signage as well as locations of signage if that will help as they did send me them when I requested it. I couldn't make a real picture of the signage or by Google Maps as basically the car park management changed so now its owned by a different PPC]

[STRIKE]5.1. Vehicle registration XXXX has not entered past the gate and therefore is not entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

5.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park. [/STRIKE]

5.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beaviscase is distinguished.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient propietary proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

6.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing 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 the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

8. 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.


(statement of truth and signature and date go here)


Thanks once again