VCS court date

ehupduck

Ok.....here is my draft 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 ( ), of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in a FREE carpark at the ( ) Shopping Centre. Rotherham.

2.1. 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, 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.

2.2. 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, 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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The signage was small and barely legible being on a blue background with yellow writing. It was very high, much higher than head height and certainly not readable from the driving seat of a car.



5.1. It is worth noting that I have returned to the car park recently to find that all the signs have been completely changed for large White signage, low to the ground at the entrance of the carpark and then signs every 4 metres throughout the car park. This would imply that the original signage was not fit for purpose and therefore redundant in its offer of contract.

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.

ehupduck

Hi Everyone, please take a look at the defence above and let me know if this is Ok....any input welcome, I appreciate your help.

Coupon-mad

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ( ), of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in a FREE carpark at the ( ) Shopping Centre. Rotherham.

No, it was not PARKED so don't say so. You want to say that it is admitted that the car was unloading to an adjacent shop for a minute or two, and not parked.

You could also mention this charge is unsupported by the terms on the sign, terms that only cover parking licences under agreed contract by leaving a vehicle for a 'period of parking'. The signs are silent about unloading activity which is certainly in the contemplation of charity shops at this retail park and should be in the contemplation of the third party parking firm if they are trying to paint a picture of a commercial legitimate interest excuse for this unconscionable penalty. And the operator should know that the IPC Code of Practice prohibits them from predatory ticketing and requires a minimum (not maximum) ten minute grace period before enforcement.

Don't put 'free' in capitals.

Don't put ''I have returned to the car park'' as the word 'returned' tells the Judge that you were driving...even though you also want to rely on the fact VCS didn't follow the POFA and got your keeper data prematurely.

And don't have 'I'' or ''me'' in a defence. That comes later at WS stage.

ehupduck

Thank you for that, I will alter accordingly. shall I repost for final check through or do you think it will be Ok? I don't want clog up the board .......


Oh and I have submitted an SAR to see exactly what data they have on me..

Coupon-mad

By staying on one thread you are not clogging up the board and we're happy to reply when you need help here.

The defence looks fine if you change the focus to 'unloading'/no grace period:

You want to say that it is admitted that the car was unloading to an adjacent shop for a minute or two, and not parked.

You could also mention this charge is unsupported by the terms on the sign, terms that only cover parking licences under agreed contract by leaving a vehicle for a 'period of parking'. The signs are silent about unloading activity which is certainly in the contemplation of charity shops at this retail park and should be in the contemplation of the third party parking firm if they are trying to paint a picture of a commercial legitimate interest excuse for this unconscionable penalty. And the operator should know that the IPC Code of Practice prohibits them from predatory ticketing and requires a minimum (not maximum) ten minute grace period before enforcement.

ehupduck

Ok, interesting situation......I have been onto VCS webpage to print off the photos they have on file
Each time I view a photo and print it, I am forced back to the front sign on page. I have done this with 3 photos and now it won't let me back in stating that ''Sorry, we cannot find this ticket - please check the details you have provided are correct"
Well yes! they are correct as I've just used the same details 3 times!!


Is there some advantage to them to keep me off the page?

ehupduck

Must have been a temporary blip....I have managed to print off the rest of the photos.
Submitting my defence today

ehupduck

Noted on a VCS sign :


It you fail to comply with these terms and conditions VCS Ltd and /or it's agents may request the registered keeper's details from the DVLA to trace the driver responsible.


It alludes that the keeper and the driver are the same person. The only details that they can get from the DVLA are the Keeper details ......nothing more. I think this paragraph is deliberately misleading.


Or is it just the way I've read it?

DragonCart

Looks familiar ehupduck.


https://ibb.co/NSNNjR6

ehupduck

DragonCart wrote: »

Looks familiar ehupduck.


https://ibb.co/NSNNjR6

Yep....I see where your going with your claim. Far too much ambiguity and things done without consent.