Received a Letter Before Claim from Vehicle Control Services - help

Chucky1234

Wow, thank you so much for that. I have read through to make sure it all applies to my case and I am now very happy with it. Shall I submit my defence now or shall I wait it out and submit it closer to the deadline? (10th June)

Coupon-mad

As soon as you like, exactly as instructed by KeithP in post #13.

I am glad I got all the facts right - I went through the info in your draft and shoehorned it in!

The byelaws, the POFA, the articles and LGO complaint case and any case law mentioned in that defence will need you to find later and print out, to accompany your Witness statement. But this will be further down the line so keep half an eye on what the defence actually says and relies on and bring it forward when it comes to WS stage so it's seamless.

I think you have a good case here, and we are always confident of winning.

Stick around and come back at each stage (NOT DQ STAGE PLEASE - that is fully covered in the sticky!). To prepare for the stages, just read bargepole's Court Procedures thread, liked in the NEWBIES thread under the red sub heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

And we'd love to see VCS' WS and evidence further down the line to help you tear it apart!

Meanwhile, get some signage photos now in readiness.

Chucky1234

Thank you so much! I will follow the advice on how to send my defence off and I'll get it sent over the weekend!

I will keep reading up and preparing for the next stages, and I will be sure to come back at the next stage of the claim!

Once again, thank you.

Chucky1234

Update:

I have now received a Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track, which is on 8th November at 10AM.

I have to send my Witness Statement, copies of documents I intend to rely on and my defence to the court and the other party.

I'm going to go away and draft my witness statement now and post it on here for review. I will also go away and ensure I have all documents which are mentioned in my defence saved to my computer.

Is there anything else I need to do or is what I am doing correct?

KeithP

You don't have to do anything more with your Defence, unless you have been specifically asked to do that.

You do need to prepare a Costs Schedule.

Chucky1234

Also, I have not received a DQ from the claimant yet. Is this correct?

KeithP

Chucky1234 wrote: »

Also, I have not received a DQ from the claimant yet. Is this correct?

That is not correct. Check on MCOL - it should show whether the CCBC has received the Claimant's DQ. I suspect the CCBC have received the Claimant's DQ, otherwise the case would not have progressed this far.

So complain to the CCBC that you have not received the Claimant's DQ and send a copy of that complaint to the Claimant.


You haven't told us, but have you filed a DQ and sent a copy of your DQ to the Claimant?

Chucky1234

I have just double checked MCOL and I can see that have submitted the DQ, but I haven't received it. I shall send an email to CBBC now and send a copy to the claimant.

Yes, my DQ was filed to the court and a copy sent to the claimant.

Chucky1234

I have just finished my draft witness statement. Only thing I have left to do is to reference all the evidence up, which I shall do. Please could somebody very kindly critique it when they get chance.

In the County Court at Dudley, Dudley Courthouse, The Inhedge, Dudley, West Midlands, DY1 1RY

Claim No. XXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXXXXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked TH1 to which I will refer.

1. The Claimant asserts that I entered into a contract with it, that I breached that contract and must pay a contractual charge, with further undefined and unexplained additional charges. It claims that I parked beyond the bay markings at Centro Sandwell and Dudley Station Main Park and Ride Car Park (“the car park”) on 22 November 2017, some 22 months ago.

2. Before I describe my version of events, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. The location the alleged contravention occurred is subject to statutory control and the parking charge is statute barred. The car park is covered by Railway Byelaws (RB2005) therefore any parking enforcement remains in the gift of the relevant authority to lay before magistrates within six months of the parking offence. Due to these facts, this case is now statute barred.
b. I deny I was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, and I am merely the registered keeper. Liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper in this case. As this is not ‘relevant land’, this means I, as the registered keeper, cannot be pursued for the alleged debt of the driver of the vehicle, for which no evidence has been produced to identify. The alleged contravention was now 22 months ago and at the time there were 4 persons insured to drive the vehicle.
c. Unclear signage and contractual terms. There are two signs on entry to the car park. A large sign which displays prominently ‘Network West Midlands’ and offers parking for rail users, and a considerately smaller, less prominent sign which is unreadable to a driver of a moving vehicle which displays Vehicle Control Services Limited (“VCS”).

3. The location of the alleged contravention was “Sandwell and Dudley Park and Ride car park” which is land under statutory control and therefore does not meet the definition of ‘relevant land’ set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). I have attached a copy of this and have highlighted the relevant parts.

4. Further to 3., the current national Railway Byelaws (‘RB2005’) apply to this land. As a result, any parking enforcement remains in the gift of the relevant authority to pursue, by laying a case before magistrates within six months of a parking event. We are now 22 months on, and no case has been put before the magistrates, nor have I received any correspondence from the authority. I have attached a sign on display at the car park confirming the site is operating under RB2005 and I have also attached a copy of stated Byelaws.
5. Due to the above, the POFA does not apply to this case so there is no keeper liability in this case. The Claimant can claim against the driver only, which it has not done so and has instead pursued myself as the keeper.

6. Furthermore, any breach of the terms and conditions (which is denied) would have to be pursued by ‘West Midlands Combined Authority’ (WMCA) and not by this Claimant, and it would have to be before magistrates prior to April 2018, pursuant to RB2005. This claim fails ab initio.

7. I deny I was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I can confirm there were 4 people insured to drive the vehicle that day, and that none of them can remember driving the vehicle on that day in question – due to it being back in November 2017. There has been no proof provided by the Claimant to identify the driver and there is no obligation on myself, as the registered keeper to identify the driver. I have attached a copy of the insurance policy covering the date in question showing that there were 4 people insured to drive the vehicle.

8. I have received numerous threatening letters from the Claimant where they are stating they have the right to recover the alleged debt from me, as the registered keeper if they I do not provide them with the details of the driver. This is untrue, as shown above. It is not unreasonable to assume that a company such as VCS would be aware of this fact and have instead attempted to bully me into paying this alleged debt. I have attached a copy of the Notice To Keeper sent to me and highlighted where they state I am liable as the keeper.

9. I have since visited the site as a result of this claim and can confirm there are two sets of contradicting signage operating in the car park. The first is a prominent sign on the entrance to the car park displaying ‘Network West Midlands’ which appears to be offering parking for users of the train station. The second, which are much less prominent, are signs from VCS in a much smaller font, not visible to the driver of a vehicle with presumed terms and conditions. I have attached a copy of the two signs along with a copy of the terms and conditions displayed on small signs around the car park.

10. There appears to be miniscule, small print paragraph at the bottom of the terms and conditions which state the driver agrees to pay a ‘Parking Charge’ of £100 if the terms and conditions are not met. It cannot be said that a clear and obvious contract has been prominently brought to the attention of drivers. This contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd vs Beavis [2015] which the Claimant mentioned in correspondence to me. I have attached a copy of the sign in this case for reference.

11. As of the date of writing, 2 September 2019, no Directors Questionnaire has been received from the Claimant.

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

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature of Defendant:

Name: XXXXXXX
Date: XX/XX/XXXX

KeithP

Remove para 11. It will be obvious to the court that you have managed without and it has caused you no hardship.

In my earlier post I suggested you complain to the court about the Claimant's failing. Not about adding that to your WS.

And the first Statement of Truth - the one that mentions Defence Statement - is superfluous.