VCS Court Claim - Johnsons Cleaners

Coupon-mad

goingcrazy2019 wrote: »

Trying to locate the original, but think it was yellow and definitely a printed card with hand written info. Can’t remember if it had ‘this is not a PCN charge’

it was probably a ''not a parking charge notice'' in which case there is a defence already written in the NEWBIES thread about VCS an a ''fake'' CN, which they then lie in the Particulars, was a 'CN' after all.

In terms of the ‘permit’ issue, there are no actual permits issued (employees confirmed this) so it’s not possible to get a permit. Is this something to mention in the defence or is it irrelevant?

Search the forum for PACE v Lengyel void for impossibility and copy from a defence just like your situation.

goingcrazy2019

Please could someone check this for me? I've kept it short.





IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

• The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
• Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that must be used to form contracts. It says: ''It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.''
• The International Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code Of Practice v6 Amended 14th June 2017 (of which the claimant is a member) states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs (this is more specifically given as 10 minutes according to British Parking Association code of practice) so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.
• 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.
• As parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit due to the shop being closed, the contract in any case has failed by the doctrine of impossibility of performance (PACE vs Lengyel). This would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would therefore be a trespasser. The claim in question does not argue trespass.
• 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.
• The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
• 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

Redx

should be numbered , like the posts by BARGEPOLE

goingcrazy2019

it is in the word document - not sure why it has come out like this on the forum.

KeithP

Mickey Mouse forums cannot cope with all the formatting options of all the world's best word processing software.

Also, copying direct to this forum from a Word document is a bad idea.

See this thread...

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5706338

goingcrazy2019

Here you go - as suggested by your suggested thread:


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. Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that must be used to form contracts. It says: ''It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.''



3. The International Parking Community Accredited Operator Scheme Code Of Practice v6 Amended 14th June 2017 (of which the claimant is a member) states: Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs (this is more specifically given as 10 minutes according to British Parking Association code of practice) so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site. Drivers must be allowed a minimum period of 10 minutes to leave a site after a pre-paid or permitted period of parking has expired.



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 £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.



5. As parking required a permit, and as the driver did not and could not have a permit due to the shop being closed, the contract in any case has failed by the doctrine of impossibility of performance (PACE vs Lengyel). This would mean no contract could be in place and the driver would therefore be a trespasser. The claim in question does not argue trespass.



6. 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.



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



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.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name
Signature
Date

goingcrazy2019

Also - I am not sure about the timings of the letters after the card was left on the windscreen. The first letter I received was dated 6 days after the 'contravention date' (card on car) - is that against POFA regulations?

Coupon-mad

Yes and that's why I suggest you instead use the VCS 'not a CN' defence example.

goingcrazy2019

The only problem is I can’t find the original card. It was definitely red because you can see it in the photos they’ve submitted for evidence. Does it matter if I don’t have the card? I don’t want to state it but not have evidence to back it up. Although I can reference previous court cases where they have done this, obviously.

Coupon-mad

You will get it as part of your SAR of course, that you will be emailing to the PPC.

No, it doesn't matter.