VCS MCOL Form 4yr Old Charge

Coupon-mad

Much better.

Is it this place? June 2016 photos show the VCS signs:

https://goo.gl/maps/sNr53XiZFq3kvJbw9


It's now ParkingEye:

https://goo.gl/maps/eeuZAdR5zXy6u6vv6

So clearly, VCS were removed.

Worth mentioning this is the defence, as it shows there is NO 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification in pursuing this charge 4 years later, and that distinguishes your case from ParkingEye v Beavis (really important for a Judge to hear from you about this lack of commercial justification and that VCS are simply filing a series of old 'revenge claims' for a site where they lost the contract - probably due to complaints, in our experience).

Look - it is/was a notorious scam, and the Brewery WERE fielding complaints:

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/crusader/826750/Blue-badge-parking-ticket-holder-charge-debt-collectors

Was it a windscreen PCN for parking 'out of bay' as it gets so busy?

Or an overstay after expiry of paid-for time? Just a few minutes over?

AcidTested

Many thanks for your informative responses, they are appreciated.

It is that place Coupon-mad, I've now added the following paragraph to reflect the fact that VCS have been replaced as a third party agent.

7. Between the date of the claim and today, the Claimant has been replaced as a third party agent for the land. The Claimant therefore has no ‘legitimate interest’ or commercial justification in pursuing the charge over 4 years later. This is a distinguishing factor from The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case.

With regards to the payment, I didn't pay to park as I didn't notice the fact that they wanted payment. I've never parked in a restaurant car park that requires payment. There was no windscreen ticket, it was an ANPR system and invoice.

Coupon-mad

OK, so you'd be saying the signs were unclear then and the PDT machine hidden.

AcidTested

Yes I would. Should I augment the following paras to something like this:

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. In addition, the PDT machine was not clearly visible upon entering the land.

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.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes, very good. I'd say you've nailed what you need now.

Make sure you are prepped for what happens when & how to fill out the next form, by reading bargepole's thread linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2, about 'Court Procedures'.

AcidTested

Brilliant! Many thanks for everyone's help.

AcidTested

I've just emailed my signed defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk (with 33 mins to the deadline!) and got an auto reply acknowledging receipt.

I've also logged on to MCOL and I can proceed with a defence on that. I assume I don't have to bother with that and the email takes precedence?

Le_Kirk

Correct, do not put anything in the defence box, not even a full stop, as they will take that as your defence and it will undo all the good work you have done in sending it by e-mail.

KeithP

No need to do anything on the MCOL website - other than as described in item 6 in the list in post #5 above.

AcidTested

Great stuff. Many thanks.