VCS Court Claim - Defence Submitted

theDustRoom

So... after ignoring VCS since October and sending them an "without prejudice" offer of £60 (their original "charge") when they sent me a LBC, I now have a Claim Form from Northampton for £160 plus £25 court fee.

I have made the "without prejudice" offer as I really can't be arsed but didn't want to cough up £160 - they've completely ignored this offer and now they're being more unpleasant they've had it and I'll have a fight.

The car was parked on waste land by a derelict building which was very rundown and overgrown, signage was unnoticed at the time of parking and was only directed to look for them when their stupid "NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" was left on the car windscreen.

I'm looking at the NEWBIES thread and FAQ and am yet to respond to the form (dated 04 March) which I will get on tomorrow or Monday.

Any assistance with this nonsense is very much appreciated.

Le_Kirk

Start HERE and follow the advice given, read the method for doing the AoS and then start compiling your defence using one or more of the concisely written defences by Bargepole.

If you tell us the issue date of your claim form, KeithP will be along to give you some deadlines and guidance with how to file your defence etc.

theDustRoom

Claim form is dated 4th March

KeithP

theDustRoom wrote: »

Claim form is dated 4th March

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th March, you have until Monday 25th March 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. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th April 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.

onlyfoolsandparking

Well done on choosing to fight these scumbags, I beat Excel recently (their equally scummy sister company) with a 'Landowner cancellation' so make sure you explore that option its a near 100% guarantee of getting the 'scamvoice' cancelled IF you get Landowner on your side, well worth investing time in.


Failing that the good (very experienced) regulars on here will guide you through all the processes you may go through now,especially Court and with a well crafted defence, WS etc you can give them a good kicking in Court.


Help the regulars to help you by carrying on reading this forum as much as you can take in (I read lots on here and still do) especially the NEWBIES thread.


I wish you luck and look forward to reading your success in Court.

Le_Kirk

Start HERE and follow the advice given, read the method for doing the AoS and then start compiling your defence using one or more of the concisely written defences by Bargepole.

If you tell us the issue date of your claim form, KeithP will be along to give you some deadlines and guidance with how to file your defence etc.


Link Missing from earlier post! Sorry.

The_Deep

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 become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

theDustRoom

So... I've done the AOS and after reading through various threads I've drafted this defence.

On the day in question there were other cars parked there, it's a derelict building with a bit of wasteland - the sign by my vehicle was totally obscured by a large, overgrown plant (which is clear even from their tiny photograph on the NTK) and the other signs are within swathes of graffiti making them really unclear - so much saw that they were genuinely not seen on the day.

I would very much appreciate any help you can offer with this.

---
DEFENCE
---

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, to be parked on a small patch of wasteland by a derelict building and not causing an obstruction.

2.1 It is denied that a ‘Parking Charge Notice' (‘PCN') 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 ‘PCN' 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 PCN.


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.


5. The signage is attached to a seemingly derelict building which has overgrown, wild plants and so much graffiti that it is extremely hard to see any signage is displayed at all. The evidence supplied by the Claimant on their NTK, albeit very small, clearly shows that their signage is obscured by overgrown plants and signage further away from the vehicle is lost within swathes of graffiti and is only identifiable when you are specifically directed to do so. 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.

5.1 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.

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


6. 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 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.

theDustRoom

Anyone able to give this a once over before I submit it? Needs to be in soon.

Le_Kirk

If that defence is based on the Bargepole concisely written one abut VCS and "Not a PCN" then it should be OK, especially as you have added in parts specific to your situation.

Missing word here: -

hard to see if any signage is displayed at all

I would have a look at your layout as you seem to mix up signage with landowner authority.

bargepole

theDustRoom wrote: »

Anyone able to give this a once over before I submit it? Needs to be in soon.

All looks very good to me, you have obviously done some diligent research, so I suggest you file this as written.

Then start preparing for the next stage in a few months' time, which is your Witness Statement and evidence exhibits.