VCS 'Parking Outside Designated Bay' defence helpppp needed!

The_Deep

If you pay the charge you could well be funding white slavery, the import of illicit substances, and fake Nikes in your local market. These people are crooks.

bambooparking

Update: I have submitted the defence (from my father) for the 2 claims and submitted two N244 forms with them. Will have to explain everything to my dad as he is a bit out of the loop - is there any way i can apply to be litigation friend now and do the talking on his behalf?

Also this may be a stupid question, but do I have to pay court fees at all? i thought i read on a thread somewhere we have to pay £225 thats a lot, i might as well pay the tickets then!!!

@thedeep i know, i was feeling anxious and vulnerable yesterday so i almost caved. glad you guys talked sense into me!

Coupon-mad

disregard the defence submitted online through MCOL and use the attached defence instead? is that sufficient?

Yes.

my dad owns the flat and the parking space.

Then why on earth is he not prepared to fight the scam in your local court and expose them for who they are, and claim HIS costs? I hope he sees this for what it is now.

This parking firm is trespassing against his property and he doesn't need to display a permit if he owns the space. TBH he probably doesn't, it's more likely to be allocated to him but if it's in his lease then he has rights & easements that prevail, giving HIM primacy of contract.

Read the bottom 5 transcripts here, all of which can be put in evidence later:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

and also read and be ready to use later, Link v Parkinson plus Excel v Smith (really important, as that one was hear at a higher level, on appeal) and VCS v Quayle, here:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

Really hope dad can see now why this is worth fighting. I so wish you hadn't rushed & ruined his defence though! You've made this a real faff for yourselves - you had 24 hours and could have submitted that proper defence now in his name, signed by him.

Now, you can't. Not that simple. Now, you will have to get him to apply for help with court fees and download a N244 form and go through that faff to change his nothing defence to a proper one.

It is fine that in his brief defence he said you were driving. That doesn't contradict his new defence as keeper - quite the opposite - it confirms his position. I've no idea why you didn't realise your well-worded defence works for him too, but you can sort this out (luckily at no cost).

All I would suggest is he adds that he wasn't the driver at the start here:

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration number --- which is the subject of these procedures. The Claimant has already been informed that the Defendant was not the driver, yet they have unreasonably persisted in pursuing the case against the registered keeper, despite failing to comply with the only applicable law that could establish such liability.

And I suggest that he removes these two paragraphs and re-numbers it, as these are superfluous and repetitive of stuff you already have covered:

11. It is denied that the Claimant entered a contract with the Defendant. The Claimant is a third-party company contracted to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.
11.1. In the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, it is denied that the Claimant has the contractual or other lawful authority to make contracts and/or bring proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

bambooparking

Update: I've been sent a DQ (already!) but it's got the old (crap) defence on it! I sent the updated one along with the 2 N244 forms by the deadline, so will it be updated or do I need to chase it up to get the DQ corrected to the new defence?

Coupon-mad

It should be updated but you have to give the case a chance for a Judge to read it and send an order out about it. That could take weeks, no worries, be patient.

Did you send a copy to the Claimant?

I would, even though I don't think you have to for a without notice N244 application, as I think this is classed as (I am not legally trained so stand to be corrected if wrong).

It can't hurt for DAD to send a copy by email to the C and tell them (in Dad's name throughout!! Your name appears NOWHERE!) that a N244 application has been submitted with an amended defence. In fact I'd recommend it to stop the C trying to 'strike out' the nothing defence.

bambooparking

Okay I have got my dad to email the defence to C
Also, how do I apply to be a lay representative for this case?

Socrates_1

This parking firm is trespassing against his property and he doesn't need to display a permit if he owns the space.

But the Keeper doesn't own the space the driver trespassed into.

bambooparking

socrates please stop posting on my thread!

Umkomaas

bambooparking wrote: »

Okay I have got my dad to email the defence to C
Also, how do I apply to be a lay representative for this case?

You just inform the court usher on arrival and ask that he/she lets the Judge know before you go into the court room.

You need to understand the subtle differences between a Lay Representative and a McKenzie Friend, in case the Judge queries which precise role you will be adopting. Google both to gain an understanding.

Take with you the Law Gazette article which outlines your right to be a LR - I don’t have the link to hand, but do a forum or Google search to access it. Print it off and have it with you.

bambooparking

I have a question for the DQ - i wanted to submit a letter from the neighbours who's bay I parked a little bit in saying he has no problem with it (anything specific I should add in this letter?) but do I need to list him as a witness to do that? Or is a signed letter sufficient