We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
VCS Defence Advice

Brooklyn_Bridge
Posts: 20 Forumite
Hi All,
I've received a nice letter from the County Court Business Centre and I'm looking for some advice before I draft my defence as to the best route to take.
The vehicle was parked without a permit and the MyParkingCharge plastic bag was left on the vehicle. The business have publicly admitted they had no permits to give out at that time so the driver was unable to display one.
For my defence do I:
1. Use the VCS not a CN
2. Poor signage
3. No permit available
4. All of the above
The claim is dated 13th May
Thanks in advance for your help
I've received a nice letter from the County Court Business Centre and I'm looking for some advice before I draft my defence as to the best route to take.
The vehicle was parked without a permit and the MyParkingCharge plastic bag was left on the vehicle. The business have publicly admitted they had no permits to give out at that time so the driver was unable to display one.
For my defence do I:
1. Use the VCS not a CN
2. Poor signage
3. No permit available
4. All of the above
The claim is dated 13th May
Thanks in advance for your help
0
Comments
-
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
It's difficult to advise without knowing the background.
Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in post 2 of the NEWBIES. Start with the AoS before moving on to your defence.
Use all points that are available to you.
Send an SAR to the scammers.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks0 -
All of the above, plus as Fruitcake said:Send an SAR to the scammers.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Brooklyn_Bridge wrote: »I've received a nice letter from the County Court Business Centre...
The claim is dated 13th May
Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th June 2019 to file your Defence.
That's four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Thanks for the feedback. Apologies for not providing the full detail.
First of all I have already submitted an AOS, SAR and sent an on-hold request as suggested in the newbies thread.
The vehicle was parked in the business car park and the driver was unable to display a permit as none were available and given the time of day (early morning) no staff were present. Total parking time was approx. 50 mins. The photos provided show a 10 min period between each picture. One of the photos of the signage provided with the appeal is from a completely different month and time of day and does not reflect the time of day of issue or the weather conditions at the time (dark and rainy).
When the plastic bag was received it was 9 calendar days before the NTK was received with the reason 'Parked Without A Valid Permit/Ticket'
An appeal was lodged on the deadline and declined 24 days later including the photos above.
I've messaged the business twice and had no reply.
The various payment demands were ignored and then the letter from CCBC is dated 13th May 2019.
I'll draft my defence as advised by Fruitcake as suggested using all points and post below.
Thanks again for the support.0 -
The business have publicly admitted they had no permits to give out at that time so the driver was unable to display one.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
I assume that the driver was working/had business to conduct with the owner of the car park.
VCS will say that if the driver was unable to obtain a permit that they should have moved their car. You will need to counteract that argument and as CM says obtain evidence that the driver had legitimate business and as such would have been entitled to a permit and park in the car park.
In a way this is like being unable to obtain a ticket from a pay and display. The driver was entitled to a permit and tried to obtain one but due to circumstances out of their control was unable to do so. The driver attempted to comply. When someone attempts to comply with the terms and conditions but cannot due to circumstances out of their control it can be frustration of contract.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.0 -
Thanks for all your support so far. Below is my first attempt at my defence. Any feedback gratefully received.
A couple of questions:
1. The point about the non-availability of permits. The business have now deleted this evidence but I do have a screenshot of someone else who was ticketed the day before for the same reason and the business stating they must have had none available. Should I continue with this in my defence or remove it?
2. In POFA 8.2b it states the '....specified period of parking.....' The NTK only states a date and time but then supported by photos from differing times. As they have stated a 'period' of time is that another thing for inclusion in my defence?
________________________________________
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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX but was unable to display a valid permit due to none being available at the business.
2.1 The driver was entitled to a permit and tried to obtain one but due to circumstances out of their control was unable to do so. The business have publicly admitted they had no permits available around that time and given the time of day no members of staff were present to issue one or report the problem to. As such the driver attempted to comply with the terms and conditions but was unable to do so due to circumstances out of their control and can be considered frustration of contract.
2.2. 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 plastic bag 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.
2.3. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage at the entrance to the car park is unlit and given the time of day impossible to read and reads: 'By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services'.
5.1 The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
5.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass that sign, the terms of the sparse signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.
5.3. 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.
5.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
6. 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.
6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (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.
6.2. 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.
7. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
8. 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.
Name
Date
Signature0 -
Looks fine except in #5, don't say the sign is impossible to read then say what it says! Leave it at just saying it's impossible to read.1. The point about the non-availability of permits. The business have now deleted this evidence but I do have a screenshot of someone else who was ticketed the day before for the same reason and the business stating they must have had none available. Should I continue with this in my defence or remove it?2. In POFA 8.2b it states the '....specified period of parking.....' The NTK only states a date and time but then supported by photos from differing times. As they have stated a 'period' of time is that another thing for inclusion in my defence?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
2. In POFA 8.2b it states the '....specified period of parking.....' The NTK only states a date and time but then supported by photos from differing times. As they have stated a 'period' of time is that another thing for inclusion in my defence?”Yes I would, if the time on the NtK doesn't match the photos then it can be said the NTK fails the POFA on that point, as well as the well-known error in the 28 day period we keep having to point out to newbies who miss it.
Thanks for the feedback. Just finalising my defence and wanted to clarify the above.
The POFA uses the word 'period' which I take to mean a from/to time whereas the NTK just specifies a single time which presumably is the time of issue.
There's then the issue the photo of the sign on entry to the car park is from a completely different month and time of day. Should I mention this also or just use it in my evidence?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards