VCS CC claim- Defence by 09/06/19

Mrs.Anon

Just an update,


I received the Directions questionnaire (N180) & hearing settlement form (N149A) and filled them out. I ticked 'no' to agreeing to mediation/settlement.


I have also re-assigned the case to the nearest county court: Stafford County Court, giving dates when I was on holiday or otherwise booked. I have not received a hearing date yet.


How much notice does the court give when providing a hearing date? will there be sufficient time to build a case or should I be doing that anyway?


Thanks in advance for any support!

nosferatu1001

A few months

Given you have already submitted your defence, that IS your "case". You are now, of course, writing your witness statement and compiling the other exhibits that *support* your defence.

Mrs.Anon

Another update,

A hearing date has now been set. I'm guessing that posting the date of the hearing on here will give my identity away (if the county court location hasn't already). I am clear when I need to send copies to both the court and the claimant (VCS) by.

I will post my witness statement and list supporting evidence over the next week.

Thanks

Mrs.Anon

I got my IP issue resolved, I'll make sure to use wordpad from now on....


However I use a mac so I will not paste the depth of info I was going to. Instead I'll put the key statements and cases they are relying on...



The witness statement from VCS has been received.... I'll provide a summary below (with my thoughts in red) while I finalise my witness statement to post on here.

VCS WS is more than 15 pages long with over 70 paragraphs and written by a Paralegal named Charlotte Trayers 'For and on behalf of Vehicle Control Services Ltd.’ I will go through their key points and what they are relying on below.


There does appear to be a lot of repeated points throughout the 70+ paragraphs.... padding maybe?!


Supporting documents included:

1. site info (multiple pages) Including;
- BLANK/UNSIGNED contract between VCS and land-owner.
* can they submit a blank contract as evidence?? (could have been created at any point)

**The contract states a fixed term of 12 months which has ended YEARS prior to this claim and issuance of fine.......as 'proof of contract' this is surely no such thing therefore null and void.... VCS have failed to prove to the court that a valid contract exists?

-Full print out picture of sign


-Pictures of signage

*in the daytime and not at night when they issued their piece of paper

2. 'Notices and evidence' (multiple pages)
- blank 'hybrid PCN'
*not the filled-out hybrid piece of paper they attached to vehicle

- Screenshot of history of active/dormant driver/keeper details.... not sure if this is from DVLA or their own system.

- VCS correspondance including; VCS Premature NTK/PCN, separate PCN, Final demand, LBC, photos of car on night of supposed PCN.

- Keeper's original response letter

- VCS responses (including final rejection where they say they may pursue registered keeper under POFA)


VCS Witness Statement key points
Background

- VCS accredited with IPC and shows full compliance to IPC code of practise.


- VCS submits authority to implement parking scheme. No termination of contract between VCS and landowner.
* see 1. above, the contract states 'fixed term' for 1 year (finishing years before this charge) there’s also has a clause stating VCS will be a member of an approved trade association, operating in accordance with it’s code of practise.


- Signs throughout development advise motorists are entering into a contract.


- Vehicle parked in breach of advertised T’s & C’s & failed to settle any outstanding liability.






Title and interest

-Customer only parking scheme where Patrol Officers issue PCN to vehicles in breach.
*so in this statement they admit PCN's are issued however later on they refer to the windscreen ticket as a 'card' merely warning motorists they may have breached


-Drivers accept T's & C's when driving onto land.


- Signs are visible on entry.
*Later they say that the signs are reflective and would be illuminated by car headlights. I can say upon entry there are no signs directly facing the driver and so the driver would not be able to have read them. especially when coming off a slip road where they would be unable to stop



-Additional £60 is a contractual clause on the sign & is allowed in the IP CoP

*there is wording stating additional charges may be added however they are not quantified on the sign






Liability of the defendant


- evidence of date and time of contravention. Claimant attaches 'a piece of card' which indicates the motorist that they may have breached T's & C's.
*Interesting language here.... they don't use NTD or PCN terminology and seem to be ambiguous in stating there wasn't a definite breach.


- Card provided unique code to be entered in myparkingcharge website to view evidence and pay/appeal.


- Absence of appeal within 5 days, VCS obtains keeper details from DVLA. PCN then delivered to keeper within 14 days of breach... allows "the defendant opportunity to pay or apeal"
*they are admitting to not following the protocols of POFA... later they say they rely on POFA to retrieve credit from the keeper.


- 2 tier appeal procedure.... 1st reviewed through VCS. If rejected then IAS with the IPC.


-Defendant's appeal rejected on the grounds the parking charge had been issued correctly and the defendant had not transferred liability.
*The SAR shows VCS acknowledged the main requests in my appeal and ignored them.


-"it is submitted that liability exists in each instance of parking in accordance with the notice issued to the defendant in each instance. The claimant submits that the claimant's evidence ought to be preferred in this matter"
*this makes no sense to me... I think they are referring to all the demand letters where the keeper was given the opportunity to transfer liability from the driver vice versa..


-The claimant has complied with debt pre-action protocol with compliant LBC.


-Proceedings issued in the sum of £160. PArticulars of claim were contained within the form.






Authorities

- Individuals may enter into a contract with a sign Thornton V Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163. Sign=offer, parking=acceptance.
*I could use Bowen QC case here... a sign is not merely enough. It has to be legible and state clear T's & C's.



- Precedent set by Vine V Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR 2383, 2390 If adequate signs in place, motorist cannot be heard to say that he/she did not see the notice.
*their sign does not meet IPC CoP which should render the signs inadequate, extinguishing this case?



- Relies on POFA Schedule 4: 4(1) right to recover from keeper. 5 1 (b) if they are unable to enforce against the driver...
*they have missed out the context of meeting all other requirements (which they have not).


- Parkingeye V Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 established contract between motorist & operator & motorist granted contractual license accepted by entering and leaving vehicle at site.
*Does anyone have a real copy of the sign used in the parkingeye case? I want to draw comparisons with shoddy VCS sign.


Defendant's defence
-'not causing an obstruction' is not relevant Breach objectively assessed and not determined by impact to other motorists etc.
*Funny, there is a contradicting paragraph which mentions scheme in place to prevent obstructions...


- Defendant's liability to pay the parking charge arose at time 'they parked their vehicle'
*Throughout the WS, they keep using language that infer's the defendant (registered keeper) is the driver. It is really annoying and I want to call them up on this- considering the SAR evidence will show they have no grounds to accuse the keeper & they have previously stated liability was not transferred.


- No PCN was affixed to the vehicle, rather a warning card. PCN issued to the address provided by the DVLA as that of the driver.
*Funny that earlier they state patrol officers issuing PCN's now they say it is not. Also DVLA provides information of the registered keeper, not the driver. Multiple drivers have access to this car (as can be proved by insurance & the fact other fully comp drivers with a clause for other use in their insurace can use the vehicle).


- Defendant was given contractual license to enter private property....Beavis....
*more confused reference between driver & keeper.


-Vehicle observed is not a customer nor displaying permit therefore in breach. Defendant clear of T's & C's (quotes sign).
*so the sign says 'if a valid permit/ticket is required'. surely this goes against the Red Hand Rule?


- T's & C's not unusual or unreasonable, set by client to ensure car park not misused, allow free flow of traffic & prevent obstruction by unauthorised parking.
*earlier they said obstruction was not to be considered


- Contracts presented as take-it or leave-it


- Particulars of claim are compliant with 16.4(1)(a) of Civil Procedure Rules & contain concise statement of facts.


- Claim issued through MCOL & para 4 (1) PD 7E-MCOL shows claim meets conditions. 5..2(1) & (2)(b) PD 7. Submitted online therefore limiting to 1080 characters. online submission does not require attachments to claim (para 7.3)
*This seems to be an excuse for the sparse particulars. will analyse how much characters they used....


- Claim brought through breach of contract Thornton V Shoe Lane.... & Parkingeye V Beavis.


- Claimant states signage is reflective & bolt lettering with clear T's & C's Illuminated by ambient lighting . Meets IPC CoP and therefore motorist cannot deny it is seen.


- Defendant claims unable to clarify further T's & C's through phone line at the time of contravention.
*again I stated that the helpline did not allow for contact at a similar time and day of week..... they are trying to confuse my previous arguments.


- Claimant does not rely on any T's & C's not stated on signage.
*why is there a helpline then.... the presence of a helpline infers contract can either be negotiated or clarified.


- In response to 'hybrid non-charge' the witness statement refers back to para about it being a 'warning card'.


-Claim in line with IPC Part E schedule 5 - reasonable sum being added to an overdue charge at a limit of £60 unless court proceedings started. claim does not exceed this.


- Strict proof of proprietary interest...refers to contract,
*they are using a blank, unsigned contract (which would be expired before 'breach' if filled out) as strict proof....do they think so little of the judges??!!

Summary
-Claimant entitled to erect signs. Defendant ought to have been made aware of T's & C's. defendant could not have been in doubt, at worst, after PCN issued.


-Refers to Beavis for charges are neither extravagent........etc.


- Claimant entitled to judgement. Liability agreed to £100.00 as on signs. "claimant submits entitled to judgement for the amount together with expenses"


-Defendant not paying PCN within 28 days entitles damages. Reliant on Chaplair Limited V Kumari [2015] EWCA 798 "there is nothing in the rule making powers in respect of the CPR which enable the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement....therefore agree... the judge had jurisdiction to assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14"


-End of witness statement-


*So I think that they are in a very weak position.

• No real proof of a contract with landowner (it would even be void if signed)
• They make several contradictory statements.
• They confuse driver with keeper throughout.
  
• They rely heavily on POFA yet do not meet requirements of POFA.

Hopefully the above is useful, and if anyone can spot any glaringly obvious points please let me know!
Witness statement should be up tomorrow evening.


Thanks!

Le_Kirk

If you are trying to copy and paste from word, your IP address will be blocked. Use Word Pad or similar.

Mrs.Anon

Hi All, please see above post I have edited to include all points on VCS witness statement. In my ignorance of judges, I could see how a judge would get frustrated with the repetition of paragraphs and even the confusion of contradictory statements.


Should I highlight their contradictory statements? and if referring to their evidence should I also include their evidence in my evidence?


Thanks!

Coupon-mad

This template WS that VCS use has been demolished before loads of times, so search the forum for a surname from their 'case law' and you will see something to copy & adapt from another VCS thread.

Mrs.Anon

Hi All,


Please find my witness statement below. I want to print this of Thursday night to be sent Friday to VCS & the court. Any help/review would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for all of your support, it has been stellar!


----WITNESS STATEMENT----





IN THE COUNTY COURT AT XXXXXXX
CLAIM NUMBER: XXXXXX

BETWEEN
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED (CLAIMANT)
-AND-
XXXXXX

WITNESS STATEMENT

I, XXXX, of XXXXX, will say as follows;

Introduction
1. I am the defendant and registered keeper of the vehicle in this case. Whilst I am unrepresented with no legal background, training or experience of county court procedures, I trust that the Court will excuse my inexperience and any documents I may not organise in the correct way.

2. Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidentiary documents marked Exhibit XX to XX to which I will refer.

3. I deny that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

4. The claimant asserts that my vehicle was parked in contravention of advertised Terms and Conditions at XXXX.

5. Before providing further chronology and dispute of the supposed contractual breach that happened on XXXX car park, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is;

a. I have the reasonable belief that the claimant did not have the authority on the material date to issue parking charges on this land; nor has the claimant any right to bring any action regarding this claim. It is a material fact that the claimant has not provided any proof of authority relevant to this claim prior to; or within; the claim being brought forward.

b. Separate to the contention of authority, the actions of the Claimant to (a) offer a contract in the form of a sign, (b) establish a parking charge, and (c) to claim against the registered keeper; are in breach of procedures mandated by;

i. The Parking Trade Association for which it is affiliated.
ii. The Act for which the claimant relies on.

c. A contract was not in place with the driver or the defendant who is the registered keeper. Therefore, no breach of contract has ever occurred.

d. The sum of the claim brought forward includes £100 of a Parking Charge and an additional £60 for ‘debt recovery costs’ as previously indicated by the Claimant. The additional £60 is an attempt of double recovery and is unreasonable and extravagant.

e. The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim.

Background

6. The vehicle for which I am the registered keeper was parked in a parking bay at XXXX on the evening of XXXX. A card sealed in a waterproof envelope (refer evidence XX) was affixed to the windscreen, headed by a logo showing ‘mpc’ and making reference to ‘www.myparkingcharge.co.uk’. Further information included;
a. A serial number.
b. A date and time.
c. A statement that the operator believes a contravention of advertised terms and conditions has occurred.
d. The wording ‘this is not a Parking Charge Notice’.

7. On 18/10/18, the Claimant posted a letter (see evidence XX) to my former address bearing the wording ‘Parking Charge Notice’ and ‘Notice to Keeper’. Within the letter was the amount of charge for £100 and statements that the reason for the charge was ‘Parked in a restricted/prohibited area’ and liability ‘being brought to the driver’s attention by clear signage in and around the site’.

8. On 16/11/18, the Claimant posted a final reminder to my former address bearing the wording ‘Parking Charge Notice’ and ‘Final Reminder – do not ignore’. The same information as the previous letter was present on this letter.

9. On 23/11/18, I posted a letter (refer evidence XX) to the Claimant giving the correct address for correspondence, denying any liability, and inviting the Claimant to provide evidence.

a. The letter asked the Claimant to provide the contract in place with the landowner that allowed the claimant to issue parking charges and establishing the Claimant as the legal ‘creditor’ of such charges.

b. The letter also included reasons why the claimant was in breach of the Parking Trade Association (IPC) Code of Practise and pictures I took at a later date were presented to confirm the same. On the topic of these breaches, the Claimant was asked to disprove the breaches.

c. The Claimant was given until 14/12/18 to provide evidence that they had a contract in place with the landowner and that they were not in breach of any IPC Code of Practise otherwise their request would be deemed ‘null and void’ by myself. This was to make certain that the Claimant had the right to be issuing parking charges and that this was not an elaborate scam.

10. On 11/12/18, the Claimant posted a letter in response to my correspondence (refer evidence XX) which did not provide any requested information but instead asked for driver details or payment.

11. On the Claimant failing to provide the requested proof of contract with the landowner and that they were not in breach of their affiliated association’s Code of Practise, I ignored all future correspondence leading up to the Claimant’s Letter Before Claim.

12. The Claimant then posted multiple letters (refer Evidence XX) thereafter including a rejection of appeal letter, demand for payment and final demand. The Claimant did not provide aforementioned requested information.

13. Upon receiving the Letter Before Claim dated 20/03/19, I responded to the Claimant in a letter posted 17/04/19 (refer evidence XX) again asking the Claimant to provide the same information. Again, the Claimant did not provide any requested information.

The Claimant’s inadequate evidence of authority

14. Referring to the Claimant’s supplementary evidence; CT-1 Site Information, a blank contract is shown. The contract does not show that the landowner has signed and accepted the contract and therefore the Claimant has yet again failed to provide evidence of authority.

a. Referring to the Small Business Commissioner’s government website on contracts (refer evidence XX), it is advised;
‘never leave blank spaces on a signed contract’, ‘obtain a copy of the signed contract’ and ‘If it’s not possible to have a written contract make sure you have other documentation such as emails, quotes, or notes about your discussions, by way of evidence’

15. In addition to the above, the claimant has not provided any supplementary evidence to the blank contract which builds on its credibility of being a binding contract between the Claimant and the landowner.

The Claimant’s breach of mandated Codes of Practise and ruling Act

16. Referring to evidence XX, a schedule has been set out listing the key requirements mandated in the IPC Code of Practise for which the Claimant has not met.


17. Furthermore, evidence XX is a schedule which sets out the Claimant’s breach of mandatory requirements set out in the Protection of Freedom Act (PoFA) 2012.

18. Through the Claimant’s disregard for the very guidelines and law set out to aid their business, the defendant believes that the company failed to meet the minimum obligations that would allow them to bring forward a parking charge and ultimately seek registered keeper liability.

Inadequate and illegible signage

19. Evidence XX shows a picture taken at a similar time and day as the pictures provided by the claimant. It is clear to see in this picture that the sign in the background (the same sign shown in the Claimant’s evidence) is not sufficiently lit and therefore illegible. Especially when the sign contains white text on red background- which is not compatible with nearby orange-hued fluorescent lighting, let alone when that ambient lighting is obstructed by the roof of the development as can be seen.

20. Further reference is made to the Claimant’s photographic evidence within CT1-site information. This proves that there is no specific lighting provided above any of the signage and ambient lighting is heavily relied upon.

21. Evidence XX shows the position of the signs holistically and the route of any vehicle entering the site. As can be seen the signs do not directly face any driver entering the development and therefore rendering the Paragraph 56 in the Claimant’s witness statement regarding headlights illuminating the signage as untrue. Signage must be legible by all persons (including those with impaired visibility) at all times of enforcement as required by the IPC Code of Practise. The court is asked to consider that the Claimant has failed to meet this basic requirement.

22. On considering the above, the court is asked to scrutinise the Claimant’s photographic evidence brought forward in CT2. It is clear to see that the ambient lighting in the Claimant’s photographs is artificially provided by the camera flash and does not offer a true representation of the state of the development at night-time.

23. In conclusion, breaches with regard to signage on the property mean that a valid contract could not have been offered to any individual (including visually impaired) and therefore with respect to this claim, no contract was ever in place; thus rendering a breach impossible.

Costs on the claim – disproportionate and disingenuous

24. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery.

25. 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.”

26. The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third-party debt collector during the process.

27. In fact, it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' 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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

28. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. 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.

29. Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case.

30. The Defendant refers to the following paragraphs given in the judgement on the 4th of November 2015 in ParkingEye v Beavis:

a. At para’ 98, {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves};

“Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...”

b. At para’ 193;
“judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.”

c. At para’ 198.
“The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.”

31. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

32. 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.

33. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (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 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 that their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

34. 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firms claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating:

''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process (Exhibit HC21). 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...''

35. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies Exhibit HC22) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that Distract Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

36. 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

37. 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.

Mrs.Anon

Addressing individual points and distinguishing cases referred to in the claimant’s witness statement

38. Charlotte Trayers, representing the Claimant, has been employed by the company since July 2019. As the alleged contravention took place in December 2018, none of the statements provided in her witness statement can be of her own knowledge. She is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case.

39. In light of the above, there are numerous references in the Claimant’s witness statement that are simply wrong or have twisted wording written by me to infer liability.

a. For example, paragraph 61 of the Claimant’s witness statement says:

“The defendant claims that he was unable to clarify further terms and conditions not present on the signage as he was unable to contact the Claimant at the time of the contravention”

This statement would infer that I, the defendant (and registered keeper) tried to contact the Claimant at the time of the contravention. This is false. My original letter to the Claimant (attached as evidence XX) stated:

“When calling the help-line listed on the sign at the hour and day of week matching the time on the parking charge left on my vehicle, the option to purchase a ticket is not available….”

b. After investigating the site upon receiving the second demand for payment letter, I made the call to the helpline at the same hour and day of week of the issued charge to see if there was further information or a contactable person to talk to. The above comparison of statements is just one of many confusing or contradictory statements which infer liability or that the defendant has proof of the driver’s identity.

40. Furthermore, the Claimant offers contradictory statements to the court regarding the issuance of a Notice to Driver. In Para. 10 of the Claimant’s witness statement;
“If particular vehicles were parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions then a motorist would be issued with a PCN”.

And in Para. 12 of the Claimant’s witness statement;

“It is the role of the PO [Patrol officer] to issue PCN to any vehicles identified in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions”

Yet in Para. 18, the PCN is referred to as a ‘card’ and the PCN is instead posted to the registered keeper if the charge is unpaid within 5 days of the issuance of a charge.

41. Finally, the Claimant appears to be confused as to the details provided by the DVLA. These are registered keeper details which in no way give details of the drivers of vehicles. Referring to the Claimant’s witness statement in Para. 42 “A parking charge notice was subsequently issued to the Defendant on 18th October 2018 at the address provided to the Claimant by the DVLA as being that of the vehicle driver.

42. The Claimant wishes to rely on Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 to attempt to try and prove individuals may enter into contracts with a sign.

43. That case is fully distinguished from this case in question as that relates to a car park with a barrier on entry. The sign is clearly visible to motorists entering the car park and they are able to read the sign and decide whether they want to enter the car park while they take a ticket and wait for the barrier to open. In this case, there is no barrier so the case above has no relevance on this case.

44. In Paragraph 33 of the Claimants Witness Statement, the Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’.

45. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court by mis-quoting Roch L.J. The full quote is this;

“Alternatively, and this is the ground principally urged upon us by Mr. Mott, the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judge objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method landowners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.”

46. As you can see, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

47. Paragraph 37 states the Claimant is intending to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis case.

48. This case can be fully distinguished from my case due to the following facts;

a. There was no contractual offer made giving a licence to park nor any promise made, or contract agreed based on any prominent signs or properly marked lines.

b. There is no comparable legitimate interest or commercial justification for charging more than the landowner could claim by way of restitutionary damages.

49. The claimant is intending to rely on Chaplair v Kumari to attempt to justify an unknown £60 “debt recovery charge”.

50. This case is distinguished from the case above by the following facts; the Beavis case established that a parking firm cannot seek or plead a sum in 'damages'. Chaplair v Kumari is also distinguished. Far from supporting this attempt at double recovery, Chaplair was a decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, whereas parking charges are capped by the Protections of Freedoms Act (the POFA)/the will of Parliament at the sum on any Notice to Keeper, and not higher, and the Beavis case confirmed this by only allowing £85 and no bolt on 'damages' or imaginary debt collector costs.

Conclusion

51. It is a material fact that the Claimant has failed to prove authority prior to this claim being brought forward and as such has not exhausted all options of coming to an agreement outside of the claims procedure.

52. The claimant is in breach of the very rules in place to protect its business and through obscuring the procedures as set out in trade associations codes of Practise and PoFA schedule 4, the claimant maintains a way of confusing motorists and harassing them for grossly inflated Parking charges.

53. It is reiterated that previous judgements have concluded the additional £60 on the original charge of £100 as being, in the words of District Judge Taylor; “an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover”

54. I have no doubt that an abundance of those threatening pieces of paper were affixed to cars before The Parking Bill 2017-2019 received Royal Assent on the 15th of March 2019 during the time that the Claimant patrolled the development referred to in this claim.

The Court is invited to dismiss the claim and to award my costs of dealing with this claim and attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature of Defendant:

Name: XXXXXX
Date: XXXXXX

Coupon-mad

Change this as it's not good English:

d. The sum of the claim brought forward includes £100 described as [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] a Parking Charge

6. The vehicle for which I am the registered keeper was parked in a parking bay at Johnson’s Cleaner’s (Stafford) on the evening of 12/10/19.

Are you Doctor Who?!

Typo here, because ''practise'' spelt like that, is the verb only:

IPC Code of Practise

mandated Codes of Practise

Talking of the IPC CoP, are you putting in as an exhibit, the paragraphs in that CoP that set out the TWO distinct methods of issuing a PCN - neither of which allow this hybrid method?

And did you know VCS are admitting now that the DVLA has told them to stop this 'red card/not a PCN' confusing modus operandi? I would be asking them to put in evidence and bring to trial, copies of the correspondence or meeting minutes with the DVLA and/or the IPC, where this was decided, and what exactly was said by the DVLA, why the practice was banned, because you surmise that VCS are being disingenuous by continuing to sue registered keepers on the back of a banned practice.

And make it clear to the reader, that this is about the SAME Claimant!

35. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies Exhibit HC22) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: