early morning ticket

skaart

OK I have cribbed the bulk of this from Suggii's thread entitled 'Vcs letter before claim...mistake of calling VCS when receiving NTK...Help!' Which Coupon Mad seemed to regard as good, and which seems to contain all the VCS/excel sign info relevant to my case. Since i do not have the NTK info, i have had to omit some of the details that User "Suggii" had available to them.

I have amended details as necessary, irrelevant bits deleted, and paragraph 9 added at what seemed a suitable point structurally, although the fact that parking was paid for seems more salient than this, so perhaps should appear higher? i do not suppose it matters much the order.



IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

XXXXX (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________


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


2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, registration XXXXXX at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in Albert Street car park by a 3rd party, and that the Defendant was neither driving nor present. A parking fee of £12.50 was paid into an onsite machine in cash at 20:16 on the 18th February 2017, and the pay and display ticket was displayed clearly in the window of the vehicle XXXXX with an expiry time and date of 20:16, 19th February 2017.

4. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the registered keeper 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.



5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

6. 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.






7. Further and in the alternative, 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

7.1. 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.


7.2. In any case the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking, not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued by VCS are:
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C.


8. The claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant could only form a contract with Excel Parking LTD, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the by Excel Parking logo on the Pay and display ticket. The claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim


9. Should the court find that a binding contract did exist between VCS and the defendant then it is denied that a breach of the signed T&Cs occurred for the reason that a valid ticket was purchased at 20:16 on the 18th February 2017 displaying an expiry time and date of 20:16 19th February 2017, 19th February 2017; permitting the parking of the vehicle for a further 13 hours after the alleged contravention at 06:55 19th February 2017.

10. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

12. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.



any comments much appreciated.

skaart

I need to submit this tomorrow, so if anyone who knows can spare a moment to look over it please it would be greatly appreciated.

It seems a lot of people have got cases borne out of Albert Street car park dropped by contacting VCS and mentioning the previous cases and so on- is it worth writing that letter after submitting this claim, or is that a bad idea?

Thanks all,

Coupon-mad

It's a good idea, as they will see you know the score (see why your first draft was less strong?). If you only tell the facts, you come across as a victim who has not researched the defence, and VCS would plough on.

Anyway I suggest these changes to add in the facts as they do need to be there but as part of a more robust defence.

Also you copied the words 'The D was the keeper and DRIVER' which in your first post you said you weren't! This is VITAL to get right so I've changed that too.

Also I've added the usual attack on the fake added costs, at the end, which Defendants can at least fall back on as damage limitation, if they get to a hearing and find the Judge is clueless and against them:

DEFENCE

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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper [STRIKE]and driver[/STRIKE] of the vehicle in question, registration XXXXXX [STRIKE]at the time of the alleged incident[/STRIKE]. The Defendant was not the driver, and believes he was in Scotland on the material date. The driver remains unidentified and would have been one of several insured persons at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, [STRIKE]of which the Defendant is the registered keeper,[/STRIKE] was parked in Albert Street car park by a [STRIKE]3rd[/STRIKE] third party, and that the Defendant was neither driving nor present. It appears to be common ground that a parking fee of £12.50 was paid into an onsite machine in cash at 20:16 on the 18th February 2017, and the Defendant has the honest belief that the pay and display ticket was displayed clearly in the window of the vehicle XXXXX with an expiry time and date of 20:16, 19th February 2017. The original Pay and display ticket has now been found and can be presented as proof of payment, and therefore of the invalidity of the Claimant's claim.

4. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the [STRIKE]registered keeper[/STRIKE] driver 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

6. 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.

7. Further and in the alternative, 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. [STRIKE]They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.[/STRIKE]

7.1. 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.

7.2. In any case, the Defendant has the honest belief and has found evidence that the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd ('Excel'), not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued by VCS are:
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C.

8. The Claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site. [STRIKE](as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance.[/STRIKE] However, the [STRIKE]defendant[/STRIKE] third party driver could only form a contract with Excel [STRIKE]Parking[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]LTD[/STRIKE], not the Claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the by Excel [STRIKE]Parking[/STRIKE] logo on the Pay and display ticket. The Claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim.

9. Should the court [STRIKE]find[/STRIKE] be minded to consider that:
(i) a binding contract [STRIKE]did[/STRIKE] may exist between VCS and the driver, and that

(ii) liability was transferred to the Defendant under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA'),

then [STRIKE]it[/STRIKE] both of these possibilities are [STRIKE]is[/STRIKE] denied. No [STRIKE]that a[/STRIKE] breach of the signed T&Cs occurred for the reason that a valid ticket was purchased at 20:16 on the 18th February 2017 displaying an expiry time and date of 20:16 19th February 2017, [STRIKE]19th February 2017;[/STRIKE] permitting the parking of the vehicle for a further 13 hours after the alleged contravention. [STRIKE]at 06:55 19th February 2017.[/STRIKE] And for reasons that will be expounded at trial, it is denied that liability has properly passed to the Defendant under the POFA in any case.

10. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Even if the leaseholder is shown to be Excel, it does not follow that this Claimant necessarily offered the contract to drivers at this car park, or had such authority from their sister firm, being a separate legal entity Limited company.

11. It is denied that liability has passed to the registered keeper under the POFA, not least due to the wording of this Claimant's Notice to Keeper letters at the time (the Defendant is awaiting a Subject Access Request reply to review the wording).

12. Further, it is denied that any driver would have been acting 'on behalf of' the registered keeper in any kind of agency capacity, especially given that the Defendant was away in Scotland with no influence over who was driving, and in any case, the alleged contravention took place very early in the morning after parking overnight at a weekend. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a persuasive June 2017 case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062, heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding the question of keeper liability, that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that their incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd was 'improper'.

13. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to disclose the name of the driver and can prove to the Court that more than one person had access to and was insured to drive the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract, so the balance of probabilities is not tipped in the Claimant's favour if they are wrongly trying to assume that this keeper was the driver.

14. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished from the facts of this case in all respects, given the fact that the Beavis case was considered 'completely different' from ordinary monetary contracts (such as Pay & Display car parks) and centred upon the commercial justification of a deterrent in an otherwise free retail car park with no tariffs that could quantify an actual loss, where the signage was clear and plentiful, and the Defendant was the admitted driver who had seen the terms of the signs which effectively set the price for parking after two hours, at £85.


Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

15. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

16. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

17. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum was held to already incorporate the minor expected costs of running an automated private parking business. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

18. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

19. The POFA makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge contract and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the Claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

20. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant and the other, an IPC member, yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

20.1. ''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

21. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

22. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

23. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, specifically in this case due to the abuse of process in:

(i) attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

(ii) attempting to claim a parking charge when the tariff was paid.

(iii) attempting to recover a sum from a keeper, outwith the POFA, based on a bare assumption of who was driving and improper reliance upon the law of agency which is wholly unsupported by the applicable rules of law.


Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name


Signature


Date






[STRIKE]11. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/STRIKE]

[STRIKE]12. 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.[/STRIKE]

skaart

Cant thank you enough, Coupon-Mad.

Letter printed, signed, emailed and will now compose a letter to VCS. If the letter is successful in putting the matter to rest, it may be a more useful route for people in my situation rather than going through the court process.

That said, hopefully with enough failed claims, VCS and Excel may one day get their comeuppance.

skaart

The letter as per parking Prankster's post is here to save people the search next time:

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/bw-legal-discontinue-albert-street-claim.html

skaart

Hi all,

VCS is pressing on with the case, despite me writing them a letter as per Parking prankster advice.

I have collated my evidence and mostly finished my Witness statement.

One thing I am still not sure about, having received the NTK via SAR request, is whether or not the NTK is POFA compliant. There's loads of threads here saying that VCS was bad at getting NTK's right, but I have struggled to find specific examples of in exactly what way.

Issues I can see that it might not be OK:
1. Obviously made out in the name of VCS with no mention of Excel handing over the right to act on its behalf.
2. Blank space in " maximum period allowed at site"

The NTK they have sent me looks dodgy as hell. Like all the specifics have been added later. I have a suspicion that because I said in my defence that I was awaiting the NTK via SAR, that they knew I didn't have the original and have amended the NTK. Is this crazy paranoia or a possibility?

NTK:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1DotN6B_9Qn0TH77PkD90QalksPZC9_Jf

Much appreciated if anyone can poke a few holes in this NTK as that's all I have left to be sure on, really. Thanks in advance.

skaart

SO looks like me and VCS played the saem game and waited til last day to send our WS. I'm not home til tomorrow so I will read theirs then.

2 weeks til the case, which I think I'm reasonably well prepared for so far.

My WS is attached, hopefully I didn't miss out anything major, and at least 3 solid reasons I think in there to dismiss the case:

https://gofile.io/?c=nVJwUi

1. No breach of contract (valid parking voucher)
2. VCS not party to the contract anyway (VCS/eXcel signage issue)
3. Abuse of process for the extra £60.

Do I need to bother expanding on other points? The NTK doesn't have the obvious mistakes of not being sent in time/too early.

I didn't sent a costs schedule as the template I had included waiting times etc for the actual court hearing, which of course I can't know until the day. Do I fill it out closer to the time and bring it with me?




IN THE COUNTY COURT


CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement


I, xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this case.

Attached to this statement are the exhibits which I intend to rely upon and are as follows:

EX1 Original Parking Vouchers from the 18th & 19th Feb 2017.
EX2 Images of Albert Street signage
EX3 Certificate of Insurance
EX4 Parking Prankster Blog; Vehicle Control Services v Ms A C6DP7P37
EX5 Parking Prankster Blog; VCS v Ms C C8DP37CH,
EX6 Excel Parking Services Ltd try the one two switcheroo.pdf
EX7 Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40
EX8 Notice to Keeper (NTK)
EX9 POFA schedule 4
EX10 VCS discontinue another Albert Street claim.pdf
EX11 Vehicle Control Services discontinue Albert Street claim.pdf




1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I confirm that I am and was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and thereafter date.

3. I have no reason to disbelieve that my vehicle was parked in Albert Street Car park as claimed by the Claimant between the hours of xxxx and xxxx on the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

4. I have, from my company’s financial records, found the original parking voucher proving that any payment requested by the on site signage was correctly paid during this period (EX1).

5. I was not the driver of the vehicle, as I was in Scotland at the time, and could have been any number of people since my company insurance allows anyone over the age of 25 to drive. (EX3)

a. In light of this, the claimant may only pursue the defendant as keeper of the vehicle in strict adherence to the stipulations outlined by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012).(EX9)
b. It is averred that the claimant has failed to do this on numerous points
c. Furthermore, the claimant may allege that there is a reasonable presumption that the registered keeper was also the driver, allowing them to circumvent the regulations of POFA 2012. The defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law that the keeper is the driver. The defendant denies that the keeper is obliged to name the driver to the private parking firm. POFA 2012 makes no such requirement for a keeper to do this.
d. The claimant may seek to rely on the findings of Elliot V Loake (1982) in alleging that the keeper can be presumed to have been the driver. In this criminal case, forensic evidence was produced to a criminal standard. Therefore, the same logic can absolutely not be applied in this instance.

6. Photographic evidence shows numerous signs at Albert street claiming not only that it is operated by, but also that drivers engage into a contract with Excel Parking, not Vehicle Control Services. (EX2) This is further evidenced by Excel’s logo on one of the two parking permits issued by the machines at Albert Street (EX1). VCS is therefore not a party to any contract with me and has no standing to bring a claim.

7. VCS is and was demonstrably aware of the illegitimacy of their claim, as shown by the Parking prankster blog published just days after my alleged contravention detailing Vehicle Control Services v Ms A C6DP7P37 in which the case was lost due to VCS’s failure to prove they were the proper claimant as well as their failure to comply with POFA. (EX4, EX5, EX6)

8 These failures did not only bring about VCS losing the above case, but also drove them to abandon many others; as per Parking Pranksters’ Blog published 26th March 2016 which details a string of cases abandoned by VCS all on the same grounds as VCS v Ms A C6DP7P37. (EX11, EX12)

9. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the driver was contracted to pay, This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye v Beavis. In fact it is an abuse of process for the claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This was the ruling in Claim number F0DP201T by District Judge Taylor, at Southampton Court, 10th June 2019. I draw the court's attention to the wording of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40. (EX7)

10. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

11. The claimant may rely upon a 2010 contract with Excel, the leaseholder of the land, giving VCS authority, which the claimant may assert was still valid in 2017. I refer again to the photos in EX2 showing signage showing Excel to be both the operator of the car park and the party to which any contract is made. The Claimant is therefore 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. Even if the leaseholder is shown to be Excel, it does not follow that this Claimant necessarily offered the contract to drivers at this car park, or had such authority from their sister firm, being a separate legal entity Limited company.

12. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

KeithP

I suggest you remove the Claim Number from your post.

It uniquely identifies you.

skaart

Whoops! Thanks KeithP.

Coupon-mad

The NTK doesn't have the obvious mistakes of not being sent in time/too early.

However it either says fairly low down on the front page, that they were proceeding 'on the assumption the keeper was the driver' (check that) OR it has the 28 period stated wrongly from the 'date of this notice' (check it!).

VCS have never had a POFA-compliant NTK but you need to be able to point to why not.

I didn't sent a costs schedule as the template I had included waiting times etc for the actual court hearing, which of course I can't know until the day. Do I fill it out closer to the time and bring it with me?

I say send it with a Skeleton argument as I expect you've missed reading CEC16's thread and missed appending the Caernarfon judgment against VCS, and the CRA 2015 as per CEC16's case at Southampton that I lay repped and saw off fake £160 claims last week, using 3 points of law and case law.

You need the same to be said in your skelly!

In #12 of the defence you cited the important appeal case of Excel v Smith but you haven't appended it as evidence yet. You need it.

I would also put in evidence Henry Greenslade's words (search the forum!).

Oh, and if VCS have sent their old landowner contract and said they've been running this place for more than 10 years (then signed that as a statement of truth) you must attack that as it's untrue, you can prove it with your pics from the PP blog that in the middle period at some point, it was run by EXCEL. Therefore the WS is not true.

You are missing a LOT of recent stuff that kicks out the added costs and you are not up to date in your WS point #9 as you've only talked about how the Southampton case stood in June - it went to an application hearing last week (read CEC16's thread!).

Look at this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76522303#Comment_76522303

Here is a VCS skeleton argument that is following a WS, so I'd say this is the sort of thing to add, along with your (high 3 figs) costs schedule and the evidence above that I reckon you missed adducing so far:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76516852#Comment_76516852

(that WS in the link is very weak - warning!) but the skelly covers the new legal arguments so you can copy that and demolish VCS' own WS now you say it has arrived.