VCS residential money claim

Alster370

And that is where he might wake up if you call him as a witness in court. If he fails to tell the truth to a judge ...... sure you know just how a court will react ????

Il talk with him again and make it clear he needs to stop messing around or I will involve them in the court action.


Also Ive done my first draft defense. Its still a little rusty and Im not that happy with it, and yes its painfully obvious which paragraphs I wrote. Because this is a visitors bay issue, and parking isnt mentioned in my tenancy agreement, Ive chosen to focus on the tenency agreement as the ultimate form of proof of residency and therefore permission to park, as well as their refusal to drop the claim despite requests from their clients on my behalf.




Draft


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


2. 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.


3. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of “”, who would obtain a parking permit on the tenant’s behalf.


4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark “” which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Elephant with two named drivers permitted to use it.

5. It is admitted that on the 3rd, 19th and 20th of October 2017, the Defendant's vehicle was parked in a “” visitors bay. This was primary due to the small size of the defendant’s carport and driveway. With both tenants driving full sized vehicles, parking both vehicles within the bounds of the property would obstruct access to both the visitor’s bays and adjacent driveways of fellow residents.



6. Parking permits are not required for use of the carport and driveways allocated to each property, as vehicles are assumed to belong to the tenants. The visitor spaces require a permit showing permission from a resident that that vehicle has permission to park there. These permits are obtained from “”, acting on behalf of “” as the estate management company. Only the landlord can apply for a permit on behalf of his tenants.



7. It is argued that displaying a permit amounts to permis
sion by a resident or proof of residency, and that the tenancy agreement is a superior form of proof. Therefore, the claimant cannot demand that a permit be visible and yet reject a copy of the tenancy agreement, as this amounts to a superior form of proof to park within the bay.


8. It is averred that the contract with the estate management company, 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.


9. The claimant will claim to be acting on the authority of their client the estate management company, in managing the parking at “”. The estate management company has repeatedly requested on behalf of the defendant, that the claim be withdrawn (as shown by evidence xyz) and have been ignored or met with refusal. This amounts to the claimant not acting on the interests of their client, and therefore their claimed authority to issue the money claim is disputed by the defendant.


10. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

Head it DEFENCE (there is no 's' in defense except in the USA).

Surely one of my best arguments is that VCS (at the time of the incidents) were employed by the estate management company to manage the parking, and yet they have repeatedly ignored requests by their employers to cancel the fines in question?

Yes and secondly, they and/or estate management failed to issue you with a permit which was clearly required as they knew you were a resident (albeit a tenant but they knew you required one).

Thus PACE v Lengyel will be helpful to you at evidence stage, and include in your defence now a point about the terms being unfair and 'void for impossibility' in that the Defendant is a resident who has been deprived of a permit despite the Claimant knowing they are a resident. You can't be expected to display a permit you have not been given.

Search the forum for defence void impossibility Pace Lengyel to find things to add weight to this defence draft. It is looking good but I think you need the void for impossibility argument about unfair terms.

Don't have in #6, that only a landlord can apply for a permit. That may be what you've been told but from a contract law point of view, they knew you were a resident who needed one, so VCS should damn well provide one, not slap PCN after PCN on the car that they KNOW is authorised to be there!

Unfair terms, setting out to punish you and for no 'legitimate interest' are unrecoverable and the authority for this is the Beavis case

Have they included all the PCNs in this one claim? How many?

And if it's more than one then pluralise things like here:

a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on any of the material dates

Alster370

Thank you for the input Coupon-mad, Il go over the case you mentioned and tweak the defence. On point 6, it is actually true that only the landlord can apply for permits, as the estate management company provide them on behalf of the estate when requested, as I tried to get one when the landlord failed on his promise to have them in the first few weeks on tenancy. VCS dont issue them, merely ticket everything that doesnt display them.

Coupon-mad

OK, then use that to paint the picture of unfair terms. VCS knew that you were a tenant ENTITLED to a permit yet continued to issue PCNs which goes completely against the 'legitimate interest' excuse that saved the parking charge in the Beavis case from being struck out as a penalty.

The Supreme Court said a PPC can't issue PCNs purely to punish, and must have an overriding legitimate interest in penalising the driver. None here.

Have they included all the PCNs in this one claim? How many?

Alster370

OK, then use that to paint the picture of unfair terms. VCS knew that you were a tenant ENTITLED to a permit yet continued to issue PCNs which goes completely against the 'legitimate interest' excuse that saved the parking charge in the Beavis case from being struck out as a penalty.

The CN dates are 3rd, 19th and 20th and I have my appeal reply from them on the 20th so I believe I appealed after the 2nd charge on the 19th, its hard to remember, and annoying that I do not have access to my original appeal, as you do it through the VCS website.


Although I should get it as part of my SAR yes? Which I still havent recieved despite giving them the reference numbers for the PCNs and my vehicle registration.

Have they included all the PCNs in this one claim? How many?

Yes, they are claiming for £325, so id imagine thats all three PCNs.

Coupon-mad

they are claiming for £325, so id imagine thats all three PCNs.

Sounds like two. That figure is too low for scammers scrabbling around for 3 PCNs.

Surely the POC on the left of the Claim form tells you the dates and sums?

Alster370

Sounds like two. That figure is too low for scammers scrabbling around for 3 PCNs.

Surely the POC on the left of the Claim form tells you the dates and sums?

No im certain its three, as i remember seeing a letter stating each PCN as £100 and then £25 court fees or the like.


Ive added your points to my defense, I think the content is there now, its more the wording and order that needs tweaking. The main issue now is getting the guy at the estate management company to cough up his emails to VCS requesting them to drop the fines. Rather interestingly he tried to dismiss my request to cancel when I first rang him as they no longer employ VCS to manage the estate. Significant surely if their contract states they can only pursue claims with landowners permission ( no idea if it does or not), as they have no authority over the land as they are no longer employed by the estate, although they were at the time of the incidents.


DEFENCE


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


2. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on any of material dates 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.


3. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of “”, who would obtain a parking permit on the tenant’s behalf.


4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark “” which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Elephant with two named drivers permitted to use it.

5. It is admitted that on the 3rd, 19th and 20th of October 2017, the Defendant's vehicle was parked in a “” visitors bay. This was primary due to the small size of the defendant’s carport and driveway. With both tenants driving full sized vehicles, parking both vehicles within the bounds of the property would obstruct access to both the visitor’s bays and adjacent driveways of fellow residents.



6. Parking permits are not required for use of the carport and driveways allocated to each property, as vehicles are assumed to belong to the tenants. The visitor spaces require a permit showing permission from a resident that that vehicle has permission to park there. These permits are obtained from “”, acting on behalf of “” as the estate management company. Only the landlord can apply for a permit on behalf of his tenants.



7. It is argued that displaying a permit amounts to permission by a resident or proof of residency, and that the tenancy agreement is a superior form of proof. Therefore, the claimant cannot demand that a permit be visible and yet reject a copy of the tenancy agreement, as this amounts to a superior form of proof to park within the bay.


8. Referring to the landmark Beavis vs Parking Eye case, the supreme court stated a PPC can’t issue PCNs purely to punish and must have an overriding legitimate interest in penalising the driver. The defendant argues that the claimant’s action to issue further PCNs after the initial appeal nullifies any argument of legitimate interest as proof of residency and therefore parking entitlement were offered by the defendant as part of the appeal.



9. The defendant refers to the case of PACE vs Lengyel, where District Judge Iyer states that the claimants demand couldn’t be met by the defendant due to circumstances outside their control, and therefore any alleged contract between the parties was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance. The defendant argues that VCS’ response to the defendant’s appeal, where a photocopy of a permit was requested within 14 days renders all three PCNs void for impossibility.


10. It is averred that the contract with the estate management company, 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.


11. The claimant will claim to be acting on the authority of their client the estate management company, in managing the parking at “”. The estate management company has repeatedly requested on behalf of the defendant, that the claim be withdrawn (as shown by evidence xyz) and have been ignored or met with refusal. This amounts to the claimant not acting on the interests of their client, and therefore their claimed authority to issue the money claim is disputed by the defendant.


12. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

14. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.

Coupon-mad

The main issue now is getting the guy at the estate management company to cough up his emails to VCS requesting them to drop the fines. Rather interestingly he tried to dismiss my request to cancel when I first rang him as they no longer employ VCS to manage the estate.

Also email asking him to confirm why VCS were kicked out. Really push for that answer and how many complaints were made, and exactly why VCS were removed.

Alster370

Also email asking him to confirm why VCS were kicked out. Really push for that answer and how many complaints were made, and exactly why VCS were removed.

Il keep nagging him, got nothing to loose as hes proved useless in getting them to drop the fines anyway. Few questions:


Any final suggestions to improve my defence? different order, words, content? As Il send it off otherwise.


I still havent seen the data they have on me, is it normal for them to delay it as much as possible so I dont have access to it during my defence submission stage?


I understand the arguments im using to defend myself, although Im still unsure on the whole "Not a CN defence". I understand that it says "not a parking charge/charge notice on the bag it comes in. But on the NTK they post it says its a parking contravention. Will they refer to it as a charge notice in their argument?


Thanks all for your help so far, feeling fairly confident.

Coupon-mad

The CN argument is to show they got your DVLA data prematurely and didn't comply with the POFA either.

You said this:

No im certain its three, as i remember seeing a letter stating each PCN as £100 and then £25 court fees or the like.

Are you SURE they didn't add sixty quid in fake debt collector costs on top as well? What's the actual claimed sum bottom right of the N1 form?