Court summons received - Defence written

Coupon-mad

Remove this as you should never mention loss (the case is not pleaded in loss):

9.4. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

And you should always distinguish your case from Beavis! You have an orphan heading or sentence that lends itself to a paragraph about the Beavis case being different:

No ‘legitimate interest’ or commercial justification.

Also, was the PCN on the windscreen a red card saying 'this is not a PCN'?

If so, then we already have a bespoke defence example for that fake 'CN' followed by a premature NTK from VCS, in the NEWBIES thread.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

Did it come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Turbocat

That's great. Thank you. I'll remove 9.4 and add an opening paragraph to differentiate this case to the Beavis case.

Unfortunately it was 4 years ago so I doubt that my friend will remember what wording was on the original ticket. They have lost it aswell, although they have all correspondence that followed afterwards. Sadly I don't think we'll get the information through from the SAR in time before submitting the defence.

Turbocat

The date on the county court claim form is 28 May 2019, and we completed the AoS on the 02 June 2019.

Turbocat

Yes County Court Business Centre, St Katharine's House, Northampton

Turbocat

Thanks @Coupon-mad.

I've made the suggested changes. Ignore the numbering, I'm aware it needs updating. Please find the amendment below in red:

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

2. It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark XXZZZ which is the subject of these proceedings.

3. It is acknowledged that on [date] the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the marked bay allocated to the leaseholder of XXXX.
3.1. The keeper of the vehicle (the Defendant) is the leaseholder for XXXXX.

4. The Claimant may intend to 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 the Defendant’s 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 given the car parking space in this case is a designated residential parking bay, whose sole use is intended only for the leaseholder. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from/Beavis/on the facts and circumstances outlined below.

_No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate_

4. 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 against visitors. 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.
No ‘legitimate interest’ or commercial justification.

_Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract_

5. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his or her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of XXXX whose leasehold agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide that there is a /‘right of way at all times and for all purposes connected with the use and enjoyment of the Demised premises/’ . The ‘Demised premises’ are defined in the terms of the lease as /‘All that the car parking space (or spaces)….shown for the purpose of identification only edged red on the Plan/’. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

6. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors under the terms of the lease and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgment of District Judge Connan in Pace v Mr N [2016] and Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]

7. The Defendant avers that the lease terms that exists between the leaseholder and management company extends to the use of the specified parking space and overrides any purported contract conveyed by the Claimant’s insufficient, demonstrably illegible signage.
This was asserted in the following case CS038 Jopson V Homeguard [2016] 9GF0A9E whereby Judge Harris QC ruled:
/“the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”/

_No Breach of Contract_

8. The signage visible within the car park is purported to amount to a contract by the Claimant. That being so, the terms and conditions of the “contract” are detailed on the sign and no where else. The signs on the date the parking charge notice was issued stated:

*‘Valid Permit Holders Only in Designated Bays*
*No Parking for Commercial Vehicles’*

8.1. It it put to the Claimant that the Defendant is a Valid Permit Holder and this was proven by presenting to the Patrol Officer (XXXX) the valid permit.
8.2. The Patrol Officer (XXXX) issuing the Parking Charge Notice, acknowledged receipt of this, writing on the ticket ‘Owner returned. Produced a valid VCS permit. Photographic evidence of this will be provided to the court.
8.3. It is also put to the Claimant that the vehicle was parked within the ‘Designated Bay’ for that property/permit holder.
8.4. And finally it is put to the Claimant that the vehicle was not a ‘Commercial Vehicle’.
8.5. Therefore in summary the Defendant attests that no breach of contract could have occurred as all the terms and conditions as set out in the “contract” were indeed satisfied.
8.6. Nowhere on the “contract” did it state that the Permit had to be on display.

_Additional points to be considered_

8. It is put to the Claimant that any parking management company with a legitimate interest in protecting the parking rights of a residential space – which is surely their only purpose – would immediately rescind any charges issued to residents and their legitimate visitors.
8.1 In this instance a genuine visitor to the building, with permission granted to use the relevant parking bay, parked in the allocated bay and a parking charge was issued.
8.2. After the Parking Charge Notice was issued, the Defendant immediately presented the valid parking permit to the ‘Patrol Officer’.
8.3. The Defendant upon receipt of the ’Notice to the Keeper’ provided this explanation to the Claimant.
8.4. The Defendant acknowledged this explanation, and implicitly assented to the fact that no breach had occurred by writing to the Defendant to, and I quote “*revoke the PCN provided that £10.00 cancellation fee is received by XXXX*”.

9. Accordingly it is denied that:
9.1. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
9.2. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
9.3. even if an agreement had been entered into, there was no breach of contract according to the terms and conditions stipulated. With the Claimants agreement to revoke the charge dated XXXX proving this.

_Abuse of Process_

10. It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover and the court will be invited to strike out the claim.
10.1. The Defendant would like to bring to the attention of the court that on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor of Southampton County Court ordered that a claim be struck out for an almost identical abuse of power. /‘’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 inParkingEye 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…’’/

11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought. The fee being sought is now been substantially inflated from the initial parking charge of £100 specified on the sign.
11.1 Any additional charges - variously described as ‘initial legal costs’ or ‘debt collection’ depending on the differing template letters the Defendant has received over the 4 year period that this dispute has been ongoing - is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where only £85 was recovered and it was held that such a case cannot be pleaded in damages.

KeithP

Turbocat wrote: »

The date on the county court claim form is 28 May 2019, and we completed the AoS on the 02 June 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
   
6. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
   
7. Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Coupon-mad

You have two lots of paragraph 8.

Turbocat

Sorry it’s been a while since I’ve posted but just wanted to say we had our court case heard today against VCS ltd, and we won! :beer::beer:

Thank you so much to everybody that helped on the forum. I’m so grateful that people like you spend time fighting these scum bags. It felt very sweet walking out having won, and it wouldn’t have been possible without your help. This is an incredible community that are helping so many people.

waamo

Turbocat wrote: »

Sorry it’s been a while since I’ve posted but just wanted to say we had our court case heard today against VCS ltd, and we won! :beer::beer:

Thank you so much to everybody that helped on the forum. I’m so grateful that people like you spend time fighting these scum bags. It felt very sweet walking out having won, and it wouldn’t have been possible without your help. This is an incredible community that are helping so many people.

Well done on your win. Would you kindly give us a court report please?