parking charge court letter advice

gem1875

Coupon-mad wrote: »

We are always hopeful given the 99% win rate here and ability to smash the fake costs even if a person loses (as long as Defendants take out advice on board throughout).

Ahem, there's a pre-written defence for tat in the NEWBIES thread.

Would you be able to give me the link make sure I'm looking at the right bit as I've read that much I'm hoping I have the correct one .


Once I have that should I add my defence about having a ticket onto this as well?


The help is very much appreciated.

KeithP

gem1875, you can easily find the NEWBIES thread.

I gave you a link to the NEWBIES thread in my earlier post.

gem1875

KeithP wrote: »

gem1875, you can easily find the NEWBIES thread.

I gave you a link to the NEWBIES thread in my earlier post.

Sorry Keith, I didn't phrase that right. I have read the NEWBIES thread and know where it is but I was after the exact link to the defence people keep mentioning as I have read them and am not 100% as to the one people keep referring to, I just wanted to be sure I was using the right defence advice for my situation.

KeithP

Did you not see this text in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread:

A 2018 defence re VCS and a 'THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE' which they then call a parking charge later:

gem1875

KeithP wrote: »

Did you not see this text in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread:

Thanks Keith, would you suggest I add my other defence which is I did actually have a ticket and had paid for my time in the car park?

Coupon-mad

You do obviously need to adapt the example defence to suit your case.

We ant you to show us what you come up with, as this is your case, but clearly the example I told you about (which was easy to find in seconds in the NEWBIES thread, which you could have searched for the word 'VCS') is a base to start with, then add a point or two about your facts, WITHOUT saying who was driving, unless that cat is already out of the bag.

gem1875

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You do obviously need to adapt the example defence to suit your case.

We ant you to show us what you come up with, as this is your case, but clearly the example I told you about (which was easy to find in seconds in the NEWBIES thread, which you could have searched for the word 'VCS') is a base to start with, then add a point or two about your facts, WITHOUT saying who was driving, unless that cat is already out of the bag.

These are the points I have used, only bit Im not to sure of is point 5. If we have a ticket does that mean we did in fact enter into a contract with them? ;




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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay, and had a valid ticket to be parked in that bay. The ticket bought can be produced.


3. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract nor any detail or reason for - nor clear particulars pertaining to - this claim (Practice Directions 16 7.3(1) and 7C 1.4(3A) refer). Letters requesting this information were sent with no reply.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action. 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. I have had to cover all eventualities and this has denied me a fair chance to defend this in an informed way.

5. 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.

6. 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 the photo provided by VCS as evidence it cannot be seen any instruction on how or where the ticket should be displayed.


7. I believe the photos of the car are taken in a way to avoid being able to see the ticket displayed in the window.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read in detail 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.


8. The IAS decision should be disregarded; it is ostensibly described as an appeal service, yet the Assessors' names remain secret. No figures or reports are published by the IAS. There is no scrutiny board, unlike POPLA. The IAS decisions in the public domain blatantly disregard recognised standards of law or justice.

9. 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. I and my MP have tried to contact the land owner to try and rectify this issue but have been unable to identify them to do so.
10. The Claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, ('the Beavis case') yet such an assertion is not supported by any similarity in the location, circumstances nor signage. Absent any offer or agreement on a charge, the Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports this defence. Further, there is no ‘legitimate interest’ served by ticketing of a car which has a bought and paid for ticket.

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, 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.

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.

gem1875

Can anyone advise if this applies to my case given that I did in fact have a ticket?


5. 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.


Thanks

beamerguy

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, 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.

You must point the judge to this recent decision by a District Judge about ABUSE OF PROCESS
You can refer to the case number shown here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

Le_Kirk

If you have read the Bargepole defences posted in post # 2 of the NEWBIE thread and used that as a basis for your defence you are nearly there. You need to copy them EXACTLY though as you have slipped into the First Person in your point 4. Point 5 is a standard point that Bargepole puts in for good reason.

You might also want to search the forum for Abuse of Process and use some of that information in your defence especially if the PPC is trying to claim an extra £60 as you indicate in your point 11.