County Court Claim Form from VCS

Someone_new

They're implying I didn't have a permit visible. I still have the permit, and the person who signed it is prepared to provide a statement confirming the same.

Coupon-mad

OK, show us your draft defence this month and we will help.

Someone_new

Hi, I've culled most of this from other peoples defences, let me know what you think.


1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The vehicle has a permit signed by a resident and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.A copy of the permit is attached, as is a statement from the signatory testifying to it's authenticity..

3) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

4) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and not explained to any satisfactory level.

5) This claim merely states: ''in respect of a Charge Notice for a contravention on XXXX'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'.

6) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

7) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

8) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

9) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

10) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

11) The claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

12) Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

13) In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

14) The alleged debt(s) as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

15) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than the claim). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

16) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

17) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

18) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

19) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

20) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

21) I request the court strike out the claim xxxxxxxxx for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to the claimants solicitors template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad

Is the claim from VCS themselves, or VCS using BW Legal?

Someone_new

It’s from VCS themselves. I’ve been doing the dance of stupid phone calls with BW Legal for the last few years though.

Coupon-mad

OK, so remove #6, #7 and #8 as they can be covered with the points below.

I'd swap this old Gladstones case, which isn't relevant to VCS really:

21) I request the court strike out the claim xxxxxxxxx for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to the claimants solicitors template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

For the more relevant ending here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75922229#Comment_75922229

But as this new wording I suggest you end with, covers all aspects of objections to the fake added costs, this will then mean you need to weed out your paras #15, #18 and #20 to remove partial repetition.

Then you will need to re-jig the numbers.

Have they also tried to grab FIVE YEARS in interest at 8%, i.e. claiming a monetary reward for themselves, for sitting on cases?

If so, you need to add a point near the end about that objectionable fake cost, too.

But as you have time before the defence deadline (diarise it!) wait a BIT to see if the SAR comes back to show you whether the whole dashboard is shown in their photos.

Someone_new

Hi, I've looked at the thread you've linked to but can't see the ending you're speaking of?

Le_Kirk

Someone_new wrote: »

Hi, I've looked at the thread you've linked to but can't see the ending you're speaking of?

Did you miss this when you clicked on the link or maybe you are using a mobile?

beamerguy

18) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

Or is it Abuse of Process

Read this ...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75930070#Comment_75930070

No harm advising the court of this
Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

k4ren2006

Looks like our mutual friends were busy on the 28th...we got one too.

If you're after info from the DVLA re registered keeper, you can get info this way via V888 form

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/v888-request-by-an-individual-for-information-about-a-vehicle

Any info of misuse of obtaining details can then be looked at if you disagree with who search what and for what reason. Their data protection officer is a proper jobsworth.

Good luck