VCS MCOL Form 4yr Old Charge

beamerguy

The matter has now been passed to our Legal Deprtment in order to recover the sum of £160.00 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice ["PCN"] issue to the vehicle bearing the registration mark of AB01XYZ for breaching the terms and conditions situated at Airport Pub and Grill, Manchester on 06 February 2015. The sum is inclusive of a debt collection charge of £60.00 in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

VCS in scam mode again. No doubt such rubbish is in the small print. They mean it's EXTRA PROFIT

BUT, as you will see, a District Judge said recently that this IS ABUSE OF PROCESS and in this case, he kicked BWLegal out
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

VCS are applying the same rubbish and the court should be alerted to this

AcidTested

Here is my attempt at a defence using a combination of unclear communication with regards to the claim, unclear signage and disproportionate charges.

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. This defence is going to set out the following arguments:

a. Unclear communication with regards to the nature of the claim
b. The signage was not clear, therefore the claim is void
c. The value of the claim is disproportionate and disingenuous

Unclear Communication with Regards to the Nature of the Claim
The only recent communication between the Claimant and the Defendant is the Letter Before Claim dated 17/04/19. Previous communication was in 2016, where the Defendant responded to BWLegal by post whom the Defendant believes was acting of behalf of the Claimant on 9th December 2016 explaining the following:
a. The Defendant has already paid a reasonable charge for the services at the Airport Bar and Grill on the date of the alleged offence. The response to BWLegal provided evidence of the following: a payment of £21.60 to Airport Bar and Grill for a meal and the payment for the sum of £60 for a different Parking Charge (VCO12345678) for which the defendant was driving.
b. The signage was not clear with regards to a required charge to park.

There has been no further communication between the Claimant or any other body acting on their behalf between 2016 and April 2019. The defendant believed the matter to be closed and therefore disputes the statement within the Letter Before Claim received 17/04/19 that states: “Despite our best endeavours to recover payments it has proved unsuccessful, and as such, we have no alternative but to commence legal proceedings.” This is not true. In addition, due to the time between communications, the defendant no longer is in possession of any records of the original claim from February 2015. The only information that the defendant currently has regarding the original claim is the information in the Letter Before Claim dated 17/04/19 which is not sufficient to base a claim on. The claim therefore is not clear in nature and does not describe the offence adequately enough to base a financial charge upon. Finally, the Defendant has submitted a Subject Access Request to dataprotection@vehiclecontrol.co.uk which is the Claimant’s Data Protection Officer’s email address on the 11/06/19 to obtain more information regarding the Claim, but the Claimant has not been forthcoming with more information regarding the claim.

The signage was not clear, therefore the claim is void
As stated previously the nature of the Claim is unclear, however if the claim is as the Defendant remembers from initial correspondence in 2015, then the Claimant must provide evidence that the signage was clear on the day of the offence that the claim is regarding. 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. Therefore, 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.

The value of the claim is disproportionate and disingenuous
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, in this case £100 (as per the limited information in the Letter Before Claim dated 17/04/19.) The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Further to this 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.
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 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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date


Thanks in advance for any help that you can give.

Redx

looks more like a WS than a defence to me (so for later in the process)

and it doesnt have all of the paragraphs written by coupon-mad from that ABUSE OF PROCESS thread, post #14

Coupon-mad

No idea where that draft came from but it's nothing like any defence example I can recall.

AcidTested

When looking through the example defences, none fit my case in it's entirety.

I can adapt it to more closely match the examples, but before I do this, are my 3 arguements worthy of a defence? Should I just use 1 of them such as "the value of this claim is disproportionate"?

AcidTested

Feedback noted, here is attempt number 2. This is a combination of Bargepoles' Unclear Signage Defence with more information regarding the abuse of process.

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant)
-and-
Joe Bloggs (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number AB01 XYZ on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; AB01 XYZ. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. 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, 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. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
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.

9. 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 or 'debt collection 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.

10. 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.

Name:
Signature:
Date:

Many thanks for your help.

Redx

Your defence should be based on a bargepole defence, plus add on all the abuse of process paragraphs, then adapt to suit, which will give you some 15 to 20 paragraphs

I know it's poor because D J Grand and DJ Taylor are not mentioned

Then address the POC and add a section on no landowner contract, ensure the signage is questioned etc too

So a better effort but needs more work

Le_Kirk

Your story of what happened on the day (paying for the meal etc.) can be added during the Witness Statement (WS) stage.

AcidTested

Thanks for your response. See below for the ammended version.

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number AB01 XYZ on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle; AB01 XYZ. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

7. 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, 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. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
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.

9. 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 or 'debt collection 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.

10. 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. 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.

11. Any purported 'legal costs' or ‘debt collection fees’ are fabricated and have no basis on damages or losses to the Claimant. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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 their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

14. 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 (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''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...''

15. 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.

Name:

Signature:

Date:

I'm not comfortable with the term Robo-Claim but having looked it up, it seems like a common name for the high volume solicitors etc so it's probably OK. Paras 4 and 5 refer to poor signage. Para 6 discusses the no landowner contract. The POC info is in my copy offline.

Does this seem OK?

Redx

Much better, 10 times better than the previous ones, lol

Wait for any more critique but get it signed, dated , scanned, saved as a pdf and attached to an email before the deadline this afternoon

Do not miss this deadline