VCS residential money claim

Alster370

Check the wording, ensure it doesn't refer to an earlier agreement

No reference to an earlier agreement. The property management company who issued the permits isn't the one that this contract refers too. I will ring them tomorrow to confirm the date that they stopped managing the site, but It has to be after the VCS incident, as this contract is dated 01/2019.

I think this is a good one to spring on them, as they could only argue I agreed to the contact in place at the time, if they dont have a copy of it, how can they prove anything?

Coupon-mad

Sounds good.

What a terrible WS that is, littered with typos pretty much in every paragraph!

Did they include the transcript of VCS v Ward, if they did, can we see it please? I am looking for a copy of it again, as we had it posted here once before.

Otherwise, you need to address the tediously repetitive drivel in that WS, like everyone else has done here before.

To find previous demolition jobs of the VCS WS template, simply search the forum for:

VCS witness and a surname of one of the cases they talk about.

Change the forum search default to show results as posts and you will find LOADS.

Alster370

No copy of the transcript im afraid. Ugh finally slogged through the witness statement. I would like to thank jonesthebones as their was plenty of good stuff in their WS to use in mine. May of made it too long by addressing the repetitive points. Might need to reaffirm the argument around the "not a charge notice CNs" but I dont think the rest of it is too bad for a first draft. Feedback welcome.


I am XXX, of 144 XXX, I will say as follows:

I am the defendant in this matter. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of documents marked XXX to which I will refer. Before I describe the turn of events as I saw it leading up to this hearing, I will confirm the summary of my defence to this claim is that:

1. 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.

2. Any alleged contract between the parties was invalid under the doctrine of impossibility of performance 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.

3. 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.

4. The issue of 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.

Background:
5. On the XX of September I moved into XXXXX with one other tenant. The property consists of maisonettes split into 2 residences, with a carport and drive shared between the two residences, enough for 4 small vehicles.

6. I remarked to my landlord that due to my large vehicle it wouldn’t fit on the driveway without causing significant obstruction to the driveway of the adjacent residence. My Landlord suggested that I use the “Visitors Bay” when available, as it is for residents and their visitors to use, and this would prevent any disruption when parking my vehicle.

7. He remarked further that he would speak to the Inresidence ltd, (the property management company responsible for Lenton Manor) in order to obtain me a parking permit and suggested that parking there would be no issue as it is a quiet close which isn’t a problem spot for rogue drivers parking their vehicles.

8. In the first few weeks there was no issue using the visitors bay, and I continually pressed my landlord for updates on the parking permit. On the XXX I had a charge notice placed on my windscreen stating, “This is not a charge notice”. I got in contact with my Landlord the same day and asked for an update as to when my permit would arrive. He remarked that he had been in contact with Inresidence and it would arrive shortly and reassured me that he would sort out the parking charges by explaining to VCS that I was waiting for my permit.

9. After the first charge I attempted to avoid parking in the visitor’s bay at all costs, and this was achieved by obtaining the permission of another resident to use her driveway, as she did not have a vehicle. Unfortunately, on the XXX, I had no option but to park in the visitor’s bay and unfortunately received a ticket the following morning.

10. Frustrated, I again contacted my landlord and was told that he had done all he could, and it was up to InResidence Ltd to issue the permit in good time. When I was ticketed again the following morning, I decided to take matters into my own hands and appealed using the website listed on the charge notice. I explained that I was a resident waiting for my permit to be delivered, as only the Landlord can apply for them through InResidence Ltd.

11. Unfortunately, VCS replied that they understood I was waiting for my parking permit, and then bizarrely requested that I send them photographic evidence of my parking permit within 14 days, despite knowing full well that it was out of my control and up to my landlord and inresidence to provide my permit. Considering the already significant delay in receiving my permit, and the fruitlessness in attempts to speed up the process, I submitted a copy of my tenants’ agreement to VCS using the instructions provided in the appeal. I did this because the parking permit is proof of residency or proof of permission to park by a resident, and therefore submission of my tenancy agreement as proof as residency was an alternative and superior form of proof of entitlement to park within the visitor’s bays.

Claimants witness statement and addressing individual points.

12. Paragraph 1 - Yasmeen Couser, representing the Claimant, has been employed by the company since January 2018. As the alleged contraventions took place in October 2017, none of the statements provided in her witness statement can be of her own knowledge. She is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case.

13. Paragraph 7 – It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions nor was any contract between the Defendant and Claimant established on any of the dates mentioned in this case.

14. Paragraph 8-9 is denied, and the Claimant is put to strict proof that Marriott’s chartered surveyors have any authority to delegate to the Claimant to allow for parking management and enforcement from the landowner.

15. Paragraph 10 – The Claimant insists that the Yellow/Black cards left on vehicles allegedly in breach of the terms and conditions to park are not charge notices, and yet in paragraph 10 of the Claimants Witness Statement that are described as charge notices, and this term is repeated in the contract the Claimant refers to in paragraph 9 of their witness statemen
.
16. Paragraph 11 is denied, the signage for the visitors bays relevant to this case is woefully inadequate. The small sign stating “Visitor parking - Permit required” is the only signage clearly visible when using the bay and makes no mention of a contract. The small-font sign on the adjacent residence does not stand out as being attributable to the bay, nor is it compliant with the clear signage rules set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. The claimant has also bulked up their evidence file with pictures of parking signs which are not relevant to the visitors parking bays relating to this case. And are located next to spaces far out of view of the defendant’s residence.

17. Paragraph 12 – It is noted that the Claimant again describes the yellow/black cards issued by their Patrol Officers (‘PO’) as parking charge notices despite arguing to the contrary.

18. Paragraph 13 & 14 – The Defendant would highlight that there is only 1 sign as referred to in paragraph of 13 of the Defendants Witness Statement, that is remotely near the visitor bays in question. The 18 remaining signs the Claimant claims to have erected are scattered across the large Lenton Manor residential estate and are not relevant to this case.

19. Paragraph 15 is denied. The Defendant argues that the signage relating to the bays in question is inadequate and no contract was entered at any point, nor were any terms and conditions breached.

20. Paragraph 16 through 19 is Denied. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that issuing CN’s on behalf of their client, through who the parking permits are issued, does not create a conflict of interest and unfair terms, as their client’s uselessness in issuing the defendant his rightful permit was primarily responsible for all three alleged contraventions.

21. Paragraph 20 – The Defendant counters that it IS unreasonable for the claimant to disregard a tenancy agreement as evidence of right to a parking permit and therefore right to park, in absence of displaying a permit that’s delivery was frustrated, perhaps intentionally by their client.

22. Paragraph 21 through 24 –It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of the terms and conditions nor was any contract between the Defendant and Claimant established on any of the dates mentioned in this case. It is noted that the claimant refers to their yellow/black cards as not CNs in paragraph 21, and then CN’s in paragraph 22, 23 and 24.

23. Paragraph 26 – It is reinstated by the defendant that the yellow/black warning cards affixed to vehicles in the event of an alleged contravention, which the Claimant refers to as CN’s and not CN’s interchangeably, are neither one nor another, and therefore the premature NTK issued using data requested from the DLVA was in breach of POFA 2012. Therefore, the driver was not issued with a document that created any liability for the charge whatsoever.

24. Paragraph 27 – The Claimant likes to refer to their appeal service, in an attempt to come across as an ethically responsible company. The Defendant would argue that the claimant has a reputation amongst parking enforcement companies for outrightly rejecting nearly all appeals, as this would work against their principle business model of fining motorists for alleged parking violations with no authority to do so.

25. Paragraph 28 through 31 – The IAS appeal route for cases involving a parking enforcement company who is a member of the IPC is known for routinely rejecting all but the most obvious errors in issue of a parking contravention and is as equally hopeless as the appeal process through myparkingcharge.co.uk.

26. Paragraph 32 is denied. The defendant argues that there is no liability in all three instances. The claimant’s ‘evidence’ is repetitive waffle claiming a breach of parking terms and conditions and does not address the intricacies raised in the Defendants defence.

27. Paragraph 33 - The Claimant wishes to rely on Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 to attempt to try and prove individuals may enter into contracts with a sign. That case is fully distinguished from this case in question as that relates to a car park with a barrier on entry in a commercial carpark. The sign is clearly visible to motorists entering the car park and they are able to read the sign and decide whether they want to enter the car park while they take a ticket and wait for the barrier to open. In this case, there is no barrier, and this is a residential permit space not a commercial carpark so the case above is not relevant.

28. Paragraph 34 is denied. 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.

29. In Paragraph 32 of the Claimants Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court by mis-quoting Roch L.J. The full quote is this;

“Alternatively, and this is the ground principally urged upon us by Mr. Mott, the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judge objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method landowners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.”

30. As you can see, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

31. Paragraph 36 through 38 – The claimant breached POFA terms by obtaining information from the DLVA without serving the driver with a CN, please refer to paragraph 20 of the Defendants witness statement.

32. Paragraph 39 states the Claimant is intending to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis case. This case relates to a residential car park with a residential permit scheme, not a short pay to stay commercial carpark, and therefore is not relevant.

Rebuttal of Claimants address of the Defence

33. Paragraph 40 & 41 is denied. As mentioned previously the Claimant has alleged a breach of contract and nothing more. Further, in the original particulars of the claim there is a statement that claim particulars will be served to the defendant within 14 days.
“I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form."

34. This supposed listing of detailed particulars was never served to the Defendant. This is a frequent tactic of VCS and similar companies, that by offering only vague and undetailed claim particulars, the Defendant is unable to prepare a complete defence.

35. Paragraph 42 through 43 – The Claimant is insistent that the black/yellow charge notices are not CNs. If these are not CNs, then there is no liability for the driver to pay the charge as no notice was served.

36. Paragraph 44 – The Claimant has failed to address the point mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Defence, only further reiterating that there was a breaching of terms and conditions to park. The express permission given to park by the leaseholder of 78 Lenton Manor, who attempted to obtain a permit on the Defendants behalf, excludes the Defendant from any contract to park, as the terms and conditions to park are in place to restrict parking to vehicles belonging to residents only. The Defendant falls into this category.

37. Paragraph 45 through 46 – The Defendant reiterates that the details of the driver were obtained prematurely, in breach of POFA a before any appeal was made.

38. Paragraph 47 – The Defendant denies any terms and conditions were breached nor was any contract established. The Defendant believes that not blocking access to neighbouring driveways and carports by using the visitors bay, that the Defendant was entitled to use, was in the best interests of the tenants of Lenton Manor, and thereby the Landowner.

39. Paragraph 48 – The Defendant has already provided extensive reasoning as to why his tenancy agreement and the mitigating circumstances at the time entitled the Defendant to use the visitors bay without displaying a permit.

40. As mentioned, the terms and conditions to park are enforced to restrict vehicles parking within the specified bays to those of residents, and visitors whom which residents allocate parking permission, via loan of their parking permit.

41. As the Defendant has insurmountable proof of residency via his tenancy agreement, and that every effort was made by the Defendant to obtain a parking permit, he is not bound by the terms and conditions to park. The Claimant could claim to be enforcing the bays in the best interest of residents, and yet is litigating against one of them.

42. Paragraph 50 – The Claimant has failed to produce acceptable evidence of lawful authority to manage and enforce parking controls on behalf of their client, nor have they provided evidence of their client’s authority to enforce parking controls on behalf of the landowner. 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.

43. Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to address the conflict of interest and unfair terms set out in the defence, as their request for evidence of a permit within 14 days of appeal could not be complied with, due to circumstances outside the Defendants control. The Landlord repeatedly insisted that he had requested a permit on behalf of the Defendant, and InResidence failed to provide that in good time, and the permit was finally delivered to the Defendant over 6 months later.

44. Paragraph 51 through 52 – As previously stated no contract was ever established and therefore no terms were breached on any of the three occasions.

45. Paragraph 53 is denied. The defendant refers to paragraph 9 of their defence in regard to the claimants supposed legitimate interests.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of 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.

Alster370

Any thoughts at all?

Alster370

Just done my costs schedule, dont think £353.40 is unreasonable, afterall they are trying to get a similar amount from me. Ive been fairly specific regarding how my time was been used, so hopefully this will work to my advantage if I win my case.


In the County Court at XXXXXXX
Claim NoXXXXX
Between
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXX
_____________
Defendants Schedule of Costs
_____________

Ordinary Costs
Return Mileage from home address to court (To deliver documents – 10 miles at £0.45 per mile) £4.50
Mileage from from court to VCS (To deliver documents - 6 miles at £0.45 per mile) £2.70
Mileage from VCS to home address (To deliver documents – 11 miles at £0.45 per mile) £4.95
Parking near VCS headquarters (To deliver documents) £3.00
Parking Near XXXXX county court (To deliver documents) £3.00
Parking Near XXXX county court (Attendance) £3.00
Return Mileage from home address to Court (attendance – 20 miles at £0.45 per mile) £9.00
Subtotal £30.15

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)
* Litigant in person rate of £19 per hour (Practice Direction 46.3)
Research (Cases referenced by the Defendant and Claimant as well as relevant documents)
ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 – (1 Hour) £19.00
PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd vs. Zoltan Lengyel (C7GF6E3R) – (1 Hour) £19.00
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – (1 Hour) £19.00
Promissory Estoppel Case Law – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 (CPR) – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Subject Access Request – Data Protection Act 1998 & 2018 – (0.5 Hours) £9.50

Analysis (Primarily cases relied on by the Claimant)
Particulars of Claim – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Claimants Witness Statement – (1.5 Hours) £28.50
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking 1971 2 QB 163 – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 – (0.5 Hours) £9.50
Defendants tenancy agreement for XXXXX – (1 Hour) £19.00
Claimants submitted contract (YC1-2) – (0.25 Hours) £4.75
Practice Direction 7E – Money Claim Online – (0.5 Hours) £9.50

Drafting (Time spent drafting and editing documents used by the Defendant)
Defence – (3 Hours) £57.00
Witness Statement- (4 Hours) £76.00
Printing, photocopying and postage £5.00

Subtotal £ 323.25
Total costs claimed £353.40

Alster370

Submitted my WS yesterday, but I forgot to sign the copy I gave to the Court! Im sure I did that with the defence aswell. Should I resend the entire WS or just the page with my signature?

KeithP

Here's an idea...

Why not phone the court and ask them which they would prefer?

Alster370

Need some quick advice. Been somewhat worried as my tenancy agreement doesnt mention parking permits etc, thankfully my friend has kept his texts to our landlord throughout the year mentioning the permits and fines, asking when they are due etc, was only recently made aware of this when I was discussing the case with him.

I know this is solid evidence for my arguments for unfair terms, promissory elstoppel and doctrine of impossibility, question is will this evidence be considered after submission of Defence and WS? Should I bring it to court or post it off to court and claimant ASAP?

Coupon-mad

Send it with a SIGNED(!) supplementary WS, in fact two. One from him and one from you, with that evidence attached. Do that tomorrow.

Alster370

Send it with a SIGNED(!) supplementary WS, in fact two. One from him and one from you, with that evidence attached. Do that tomorrow.

Made it short and sweet, heres the text, just describes the evidence and which paragraphs of the WS it is relevant to.

I am XXXXX, XXX. I will say as follows:
I am submitting this supplementary witness statement as it contains new evidence that supports the arguments raised in my defence and first witness statement.
The exhibits EX2-1 Through EX2-6 show mobile correspondence between the landlord of xxxxx and one of the tenants of xxxxx from the first half of 2018. The messages include repeated requests for updates regarding the parking permit and serve as evidence of paragraphs 8,9 & 10 of the first witness statement, as the correspondence between the landlord and the Defendant are no longer accessible.

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

How should I change it for my friends version? Would it be titled as his first witness statement?