Jake Burgess - VCS - Permit - Residence

AMFox

Hello All -

Seeking Advice if possible please:

I have had my head in the NEWBIES forum for the past couple of days to try and get up to speed.

A PNC was received in 2015 on my mothers vehicle. She was the registered keeper but not the Driver. She has rightly or wrongly ignored all letters and has binned most of them - before informing us that she has a Claim Form Dated 20th June 2019.

Circs:
Vehicle was parked outside of her sons flat, who had a valid permit for him and visitors.
It is not believed that a permit on this instance was displayed.
The vehicle was parked up for a short while at night and the PNC issued at around 10pm.

We have no pictures from the date of the alleged offence and my brother no longer lives at the address.

I have completed the AOS and the SAR - Awaiting reply.

I have managed to obtain a copy of the original lease, but effectively this is all I have.

In addition to this, my mum is not the most confident and I fear she wouldn't be great in court.

Would you suggest I help her contest or give in to them? My main concerns is if it goes to providing supporting evidence we will be rather limited. And at this stage how likely it will proceed all the way to being infront of the DJ?

Thanks in Advance. - Let me know if you need any further info.

Redx

yes you can help her but everything must be done in her name and she must attend court, even if you are acting as a McKenzie friend or lay rep and attending with her

your evidence will come in 2 stages

1) most of it in response to the SAR

2) the rest at the WS + EXHIBITS stage much later in this process

read the BARGEPOLE link to see what happens and when

KeithP

I do hope you sent the SAR and completed AoS in the name of the Defendant.


With a Claim Issue Date of 20th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 23rd July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but please 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.

Of course everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the Defendant.

nosferatu1001

Indeed, please please confirm the AOS was in the name of the defendant.

Post 2 of the newbies thread gives you a good start to your defence. You MUST start writing it with your mother NOW. There is NO point waiting for a SAR to come back; you can and indeed must compile the defence without thinking you will have any of those documents.

AMFox

Yes - Both were completed with her and all is in her name and with her approval.

Are you aware of anyone getting a reprieve prior to attending court or is it more than likely now that it will end up in front of the DJ?

I have begun collating the defence wording and will post an initial draft when ready.

Thanks

beamerguy

AMFox wrote: »

Are you aware of anyone getting a reprieve prior to attending court or is it more than likely now that it will end up in front of the DJ?

Thanks

One never knows what these scammers will do next, VCS were ex wheel clampers until their tail was clipped

You mention Jake Burgess ? well what can we say apart from what we have seen, he is not the smartest page in he book.

AMFox

Hi All,

Please could you have a look at my first draft. I have been scrutinising other defences and constructed this together. The formatting hasn't copied in so each point is currently not numbers. Any suggestions are most welcome. Thanks in advance!

.................................................
It is admitted that the defendant, M XXXXXX XXXXX, residing at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

It is denied that the defendant was the driver.

The vehicle had a resident's permit and was lawfully on the property.

It is denied that any 'parking charges, contractual costs or interest’ are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

The claim is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant and their solicitors on multiple occasions prior to deducing the final sum. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so the defendant has been unable to defend the standardised ‘template’ claim fairly and sufficiently as is the defendant's right. This has caused significant distress and has denied the defendant a fair chance to defend these claims in an informed way.

The claimant has omitted to produce relevant time of the alleged event, which the defendant can only presume that the claimant is alleging that the vehicle was parked at the property for the entirety of said date. The defendant vehemently denies this as a fact and would request that in the absence of strict proof this case be struck out.

The defendant puts forward that such generic conduct is against the public interest and demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. The defendant has reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to the significant detriment of the unrepresented defendant. As such the defendant respectfully asks that they be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant's case.

The defendant intermates that the claimant is using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection and is not something the courts should be seen to support.

The claimant states a claim for 'breach of contract' and for ‘contractual’ fees. There is no clear or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'contractual costs'. It is vehemently denied a contractual agreement was entered into with the claimant.

No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle, the DRIVER. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. The defendant chooses to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is their right.

It is denied that the Claimant is the landowner of the property in question or that they have any other right or proprietary interest in the land or any demonstrable intention to occupy it sufficient to demonstrate the authority to bring this claim.

The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time and on the date of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and invite the court to strike the matter out.

The claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'contractual costs'.

In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s).

In the absence of any signage that contractually overrides the terms of the lease and bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case and this claim should be struck out.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper'. This 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.

It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event. The defendant puts forward that the site stated actually has no signs in the vicinity. It is put forward that the claimant provides absolute proof and in the absence of such proof the Claimant has no case and this claim should be struck out.

It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs, be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments. The defendant will point to the vastly exaggerated and fluctuating costs “threatened” by the claimant’s solicitors, indicative of a con trick to extort money from an unsuspecting consumer. It is put forward that they are put to strict proof that the claimant has actually incurred and can lawfully add additional sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their ‘Parking Charge’ from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation. Furthermore the claimant has failed to show that their charge is proportionate or conscionable with regards to any commercial justification. As such, the alleged debt is in fact an unenforceable penalty, and not the ‘Parking Charge’ as stated within the particulars of claim. This being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

The defendant requests the court strike out this claims for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to the claimants' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

MonkeyRum

Do you have any photographs of the signs, or could you get some before submitting your defence?

With some luck they'll be worded in a way that is obviously forbidding for those not displaying permits. The signs where I live say, "parking is only permitted for those displaying permits parked in their allocated bays". That means of course, in the inverse, parking is not permitted if you don't have a permit. You can't ever into a contract for something that wasn't offered and so the terms could not have been breached.

beamerguy

Did VCS add on a fake £60 ????

If so, please read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

The_Deep

Have you complained to your MP? These scammers should be banned from residential car parks imo.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Handbags-at-dawn

A comment on Jake Burgess’s Linkedin page, underneath the write-up about VCS v Laird, reads:

Harold Myers
Consultant Physiotherapist

A recent Court case presented by Jake Burgess was struck out by the Judge for being "Incoherent and failing to plead any cause of action". VCS Ltd had been "hounding and threatening me for more than 12 months.

Harold Myers might be worth getting hold of!

This is the link: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/laird-appeal-dismissed-against-vcsl-jake-burgess/