Court Claim form - VCS

Teddy321

Hi all, i've drafted the folllwing using a combination of other Defences i've found on the forum and added some of my own points. Any comments would be greatly appreciated.


I'm away next week so aiming to file and serve this by Friday.

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration , of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on alleged private on land which the Claimant believes formed a contravention.

3. 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, 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 until the NTK was received. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge when the offence was alleged to have occured.

5. The Notice to Keeper, issue date 09/10/2018, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 in several aspects

6. POFA S4(5) states the maximum amount which may be recovered is the amount specified in the NTK (in this case £60 rising to £100). The Claimant, whether dishonestly or fraudulently is now trying to claim an additional £60 (despite making no reference to fee this in its Particulars).

7. The Defendant, due to the poorly and clearly hastily drafted Particulars of the Claimant,that this amount refers to an alleged ‘Debt Collection Fee’ which clearly contravenes POFA S.4(5). The Defendant has previously requested an explanation of how this fee was incurred and evidence in the form of an invoice, however the Claimant chose to ignore this request.

8. The Claimant also failed to comply with POFA S.8(2)(f) which states the Claimant must allow 28 days from the day after the notice was given. The Issue date being 09/10/2018, the deemed date of service is the 11/10/2018, therefore 28 days from the 12/10/2018 is 09/11/2018, however the Claimant’s NTK only allowed until 06/11/2019.
3.
9. POFA was enacted to protect against such unfair claims, and given the Claimant’s failure to adhere to this, the claim should be struck out in its entirety.
4.

10. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

11. 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.

12. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's sign sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The sign is attached to wall above the entrance door of a building and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'. There is no physical border, gated or otherwise, no clear entrance/exit nor any information in the signage providing a reasonable indication to differentiate the public land and the alleged private land.

13. Vehicle registration [/ has not entered a clearly defined perimeter, neither pysical nor identified on the signage, and therefore is cannot entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

14. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car was on clearly defined private property, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

15. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

16. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

17. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has previously requested this information but this request was ignored.

18. It is suggested that this method (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

19. It is averred that the landowner contract, 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.

20. 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.

Coupon-mad

Remove your VRN from this post, as it identifies you to VCS if they read it.

Typo here:

on alleged private on land

Another typo here, occurred as two 'r's and it's not an offence, it's an event:

when the offence was alleged to have occured.

#6 says this but the £60 MUST have been in the Claim Particulars for you to have seen it listed as part of the claim!

The Claimant, whether dishonestly or fraudulently is now trying to claim an additional £60 (despite making no reference to fee this in its Particulars).

An odd orphan 3 and 4 here need removing:

8. The Claimant also failed to comply with POFA S.8(2)(f) which states the Claimant must allow 28 days from the day after the notice was given. The Issue date being 09/10/2018, the deemed date of service is the 11/10/2018, therefore 28 days from the 12/10/2018 is 09/11/2018, however the Claimant’s NTK only allowed until 06/11/2019.
3.
9. POFA was enacted to protect against such unfair claims, and given the Claimant’s failure to adhere to this, the claim should be struck out in its entirety.
4.

But in fact I would advise you remove #8 and #9 anyway as they add nothing and #8 is confusing, given that the defence later talks about the date of the NTK being premature (which it was, if VCS are saying that a 'CN' was placed on the windscreen, because it wasn't one).

I would add in near the start where you talk about the location that:

This was an unrestricted piece of land where drivers parked without caveat or charge for many months/years, and it seems one sign was put up suddenly on an unknown date, high and out of the line of a driver's visibility, above the doorway of the warehouse.

Then cite the IPC CoP section about new restrictions needing extra signs.

KeithP

Teddy321 wrote: »

I'm away next week so aiming to file and serve this by Friday.

No need to serve your Defence on the Claimant. Just file it with the court as described in post #5 above.

Teddy321

Okay thanks will make those changes

Teddy321

My point with #6 was supposed to reflect the initial NTK stated £100 , and they have not explained in the particulars why the fee is now £160 and make no reference to the debt collection fee of £60?

Coupon-mad

But the Particulars try to claim £160, so the £60 is mentioned in the POC.

A stronger set of arguments about the scam costs is here in a section you can copy, under 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75711757#Comment_75711757

HTH

Teddy321

Have edited as suggested above- does this seem okay?



DEFENCE

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration , of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on alleged private land which the Claimant believes formed a contravention.

3. 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, 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.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge when the event was alleged to have occurred.

5. The Notice to Keeper, issue date 09/10/2018, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 in several aspects

6. POFA S4(5) states the maximum amount which may be recovered is the amount specified in the NTK (in this case £60 rising to £100). Therefore there is no legal basis for the sum claimed of £160 and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant’s costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

7. The Defendant, due to the poorly and clearly hastily drafted Particulars of the Claimant,that this amount refers to an alleged ‘Debt Collection Fee’ which clearly contravenes POFA S.4(5). The Defendant has previously requested an explanation of how this fee was incurred and evidence in the form of an invoice, however the Claimant chose to ignore this request.

8. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

9. 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.

10. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's sign sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The sign is attached to wall above the entrance door of a building and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'. There is no ‘entrance’ or exit, no physical border, gated or otherwise, nor any information in the signage providing a reasonable indication to differentiate the public land and the alleged private land.

11. Vehicle registration has not entered a clearly defined perimeter, neither physical nor identified on the signage, and therefore is cannot entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services.

12. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car was on clearly defined private property, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.

13. The terms on the Claimant's signage do not offer any kind of parking licence to anyone who isn't in a pre-authorised vehicle or holding a permit. There is no information available on how to obtain a permit. If there is no offer of parking then the basic requirements for forming a contract with the driver are not present (in basic terms, 'offer', 'acceptance', and 'consideration'), and no contract can be formed. If there is no contract then there is no breach, and hence no charge for a breach. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

14. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

15. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Defendant has previously requested this information several months before the claim was issued in an attempt to avoid litigation, but this request was ignored by the Claimant.

17. It is suggested that this method (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

18. It is averred that the landowner contract, 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.

19. 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.


(statement of truth and signature and date go here)

Coupon-mad

You didn't add the stuff about costs:

A stronger set of arguments about the scam costs is here in a section you can copy, under 'Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75711757#Comment_75711757

HTH

And in the actual document, that font you've shown us is not at all easy to read, so change it to Times New Roman font size 12 and 1.5 line-spaced, so the Judge can easily read your defence, which is part of the battle!

Teddy321

From how it reads, that section relates to costs on the claim, not the costs the claimant has incurred during the claim. The costs section on the claim for says £0 so I assume VCS have learned from past mistakes and left this blank for the court to assess.

Thanks for your help I'm filing this today

Coupon-mad

Hang on, surely they are calling the debt £160, not the sum on the signs?