VCS residential money claim

Alster370

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?

Yes, its a claimed sum of £300 with £25 court fee. Thank you I now understand how I can use the CN argument against them.

Alster370

"The claim agaist the defendant is for breach of contract in respect to breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. the defendant was issued with charge notices and has failed to settle their outstanding liabilities. At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and or driveer of the vehicle identified in the particulars of the claim. it is alleged that the defendant breached the terms and conditions of entereing private land as detailed in the particulars of claim ( to follow). the claimant seeks recovery of the CNs and interest under section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rote of 8% at the same rate up to the date of judgement or earlier payment. I will provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form."


Simon Renshaw-Smith








Was looking over the particulars of the claim today as Il probably submit my defence today or tomorrow. All it states is breach of contract, and then there is this little nugget at the bottom. I have not recieved any detailed particulars of their claim so far.

Alster370

[FONT=&quot]Looking for final opinions on my defence, changing words, order, phrasing etc as il submit it today.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the County Court[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Claim No:[/FONT][FONT=&quot] XXXXXXX[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Between[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]-and-[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]XXXXXXXX (Defendant)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]_____________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]DEFENCE[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]_____________[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Preliminary[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot]mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current leaseholder of XXXXXX, who would obtain a parking permit on the tenant’s behalf.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Background[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Elephant with two named drivers permitted to use it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5. It is admitted that on the 3rd, 19th and 20th of October 2017, the Defendant's vehicle was parked in aXXXXX visitor 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 within the bounds of the property would obstruct access to both the visitor’s bays and adjacent driveways of fellow residents.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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 the estate management company Inresidence, acting on behalf of XXXX. Only the landlord can apply for a permit on behalf of their tenants.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7. As permits are only issued to residents, it is argued that cars displaying permits are either tenant vehicles or those authorised by a tenant. Therefore the claimant cannot demand that a permit be visible and yet reject a copy of the tenancy agreement in appeal, as this amounts to a superior form of proof to park within the bay.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8. Referring to ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Alternative Defence – No authority from Landowner to raise claim & PCN’s void for impossibility[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]9. The Defendant refers to the case of PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd vs. Zoltan Lengyel (C7GF6E3R) 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]10. It is averred that the contract with the estate management company, if there is one that was in existence at the material times, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars [/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot] following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA [/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot] or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot]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[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot]CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]11. The Claimant will claim to be acting on the authority of their employer, Inresidence, in managing the parking at XXX. Inresidence have repeatedly requested on behalf of the Defendant, that the claim be withdrawn 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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]13. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]STATEMENT OF TRUTH[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Signed __________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Date ____________________________[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

''as detailed in the particulars of claim ( to follow). I will provide the defendant with seperate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.''

Interesting.

So they are trying that little trick that causes people to waste time waiting as they have no details to go on, and the victim might then not do the AOS, or defend in time.

CEL did that in 2017 quite a lot.

the landlord had promised the permit would arrive soon and there would be no issue

Search this forum for promissory estoppel defence and use the words you find about that point, too, suggesting that you believe the Landlord HAD applied for the permit but for whatever reason, the permit was delayed, frustrating any alleged parking contract and also creating a conflict of interests and unfair terms, as the very people who provide the permits also contract VCS.

This was primary due

'primarily'

And it wasn't a yellow/black envelope was it? Red envelope with a card inside?

Alster370

[FONT=&quot]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[/FONT][FONT=&quot]‐[/FONT][FONT=&quot]mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current leaseholder of XXXXXX, who had promised the permit would arrive soon and there would be no issue.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Changed paragraph 3 as suggested and corrected spelling mistake.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Search this forum for promissory estoppel defence and use the words you find about that point, too, suggesting that you believe the Landlord HAD applied for the permit but for whatever reason, the permit was delayed, frustrating any alleged parking contract and also creating a conflict of interests and unfair terms, as the very people who provide the permits also contract VCS.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Interesting, does this apply in the case of the Landlord saying he will apply for a permit, and then not actually following through? As I got alot of "Ive spoken to them" and "Its coming" from him if I recall.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]And it wasn't a yellow/black envelope was it? Red envelope with a card inside?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It was a while ago but the card is white with a checkered yellow black border. I think it came in a clear bag, might of had a red section on it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Interesting, does this apply in the case of the Landlord saying he will apply for a permit, and then not actually following through? As I got alot of "Ive spoken to them" and "Its coming" from him if I recall.

You need to believe him that he did apply and the delay was at the MA, who contacted the scammers, and that's why I put my suggested words for your defence.

It's all there to catch the PPC out, their job to disprove what you say. Remember that, at the hearing, it might be the contract law argument below that the Judge likes most, to find in your favour!

So you bring in a paragraph about estoppel AND frustration of contract:

Search this forum for promissory estoppel defence and use the words you find about that point, too, suggesting that you believe the Landlord HAD applied for the permit but for whatever reason, the permit was delayed, frustrating any alleged parking contract and also creating a conflict of interests and unfair terms, as the very people who provide the permits also contract VCS.

Alster370

You need to believe him that he did apply and the delay was at the MA, who contacted the scammers, and that's why I put my suggested words for your defence.

It's all there to catch the PPC out, their job to disprove what you say. Remember that, at the hearing, it might be the contract law argument below that the Judge likes most, to find in your favour!

Ok thanks, its another good point to use against them, Il add that, must submit tomorrow though. Would be a shame to create such a perfect defence and then miss the deadline!


Should I remove the black yellow envelope bit and just put misleading CN cards?

Coupon-mad

Just remove the words yellow/black.

Alster370

Alright ive added a paragraph regarding estoppel, highlighted in red. If there are no further suggestions Il sign this and get it sent off today.




In the County Court

Claim No:XXXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXXXX (Defendant)

_____________

DEFENCE

_____________

Preliminary


1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.


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 an 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 leaseholder of XXXXXXX, who would obtain a parking permit on the tenant’s behalf.


Background


4. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXXXXXX 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 XXXXXXX visitor bay. This was primarily due to the small size of the defendant’s carport and driveway. With both tenants driving full sized vehicles, parking both within the bounds of the property would obstruct access to both the visitor’s bays and adjacent driveways of fellow residents.


Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract


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 the estate management company Inresidence, acting on behalf of XXXXXX. Only the landlord can apply for a permit on behalf of their tenants.


7. As permits are only issued to residents, it is argued that cars displaying permits are either tenant vehicles or those authorised by a tenant. Therefore the claimant cannot demand that a permit be visible and yet reject a copy of the tenancy agreement in appeal, as this amounts to a superior form of proof to park within the bay.


8. The Defendant was repeatedly assured by the landlord that a permit would be issued promptly within the first few weeks of tenancy. Despite the landlord applying for the parking permit on the tenants’ behalf, the permit was not received from Inresidence until May the following year. The defendant argues that any alleged contract is void under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, due to a conflict of interest and unfair terms, as Inresidence not only issue the permits but contract VCS to manage the estate.



9. Referring to ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67, the 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.


Alternative Defence – No authority from Landowner to raise claim & PCN’s void for impossibility


10. The Defendant refers to the case of PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd vs. Zoltan Lengyel (C7GF6E3R) 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.


11. It is averred that the contract with the estate management company, if there is one that was in existence at the material times, 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.


12. The Claimant will claim to be acting on the authority of their employer, Inresidence, in managing the parking at XXXXX. Inresidence have repeatedly requested on behalf of the Defendant, that the claim be withdrawn 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.


13. 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.


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


15. 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.





Signed __________________________


Date ____________________________

Coupon-mad

How about:

The defendant argues that any alleged contract is void under the doctrines of promissory estoppel and frustration of contract by the Claimant's principal,