vcs County Court Clai

Mango79

Attempt two is below, please advise if this covers things better.

In the POC they refer to the car being on private land in the corn exchange, however it would appear ( after a google as I wasn't the driver I had no idea where it was) that it is a car park that has an actual name and is on a particular street.
Does it matter that they are refering to it one way where it is actually called something else?
Is this another point to add in?

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

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach in advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket / permit.’ 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 when parking in the Corn Exchange 12/06/2015 at 00:22

3. The defendant was not the driver at the time of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention

4. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

5. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and cannot be held liable due to this Claimant's well-documented admission that they did not use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') in their Notice to Keeper letters in the year in question.

5.1. Further, it is denied that any driver would have been acting 'on behalf of' the registered keeper in any kind of agency capacity. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a persuasive June 2017 case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062) heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding the question of keeper liability, that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that their incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd to try to paint an individual as liable under a twisted interpretation of the law of agency, was 'improper' and that outwith the POFA, liability cannot pass to the keeper.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The alleged incident occurred at 00:22 during the hours of darkness. The claimant is put to proof that the signage was illuminated and visable to anyone at the location at the material time. If they were not then it is argued that it is impossible for a driver to make an informed decisions or enter into any contract with VCS Ltd.

7. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

9. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'contractual costs' of £60. Not only is this an abuse of process as such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred contractual costs.

10. 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.

11. 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...''

12. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

13. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

14. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts contained in this defence statement are true

Thanks

KeithP

Please re-read your hastily inserted paragraph 3:

3. The defendant was not the driver at the time of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention

Le_Kirk

Your point 11 paragraph 2 appears to be giving an instruction/order to the court, rather you should be making it clear that it is a QUOTE from the two District Judges sitting at the courts you mention.

Mango79

Thanks for the responses. So if I make those changes do you think it is ok to send? I have a few days left need to submit by Weds 24th.
Thanks

Coupon-mad

it is a car park that has an actual name and is on a particular street.
Does it matter that they are refering to it one way where it is actually called something else?

Yes, you need to add a point about that, denying that the car was actually parked at xxxxxxx (their descriptor).

Also this will need changing or the last sentence removing, won't it?

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach in advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket / permit.’ 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 when parking in the Corn Exchange 12/06/2015 at 00:22

Remove #13 as advised in another case today, by Johnersh who is a solicitor.

Mango79

Thanks will update this evening

Mango79

Hi,

Updated defence below:
I have amended the hastily added paragraph, added something to make the quote more obvious ( I hope), re worded section 2, added in another section about the location name and deleted the relevant paragraph,.
Hopefully it is ready to send - I really appreciate the feedback you have all be providing

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

2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The particulars of the claim, state the legal basis is brought against the Defendant for ‘breach in advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket / permit.’ At the Corn Exchange on the 12/6/15 at 00:22. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle was parked at the Corn Exchange 12/06/2015 at 00:22.

3. The “the Corn Exchange” to the best of the Defendants knowledge is a building and there is no parking facility in the area called “the Corn Exchange” therefore the legal basis for “breach in advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket / permit at the Corn Exchange is void. The Defendant or any driver cannot be held liable for parking in an area that doesn’t exist.

4. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention

5. The POC alleges that the Defendant was 'the registered keeper and/or the driver' of the vehicle, indicating a failure to identify a Cause of Action. The Claimant is simply offering a menu of choices and failed to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

6. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention and cannot be held liable due to this Claimant's well-documented admission that they did not use the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') in their Notice to Keeper letters in the year in question.

6.1. Further, it is denied that any driver would have been acting 'on behalf of' the registered keeper in any kind of agency capacity. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a persuasive June 2017 case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062) heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding the question of keeper liability, that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that their incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd to try to paint an individual as liable under a twisted interpretation of the law of agency, was 'improper' and that out with the POFA, liability cannot pass to the keeper.

7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner. The alleged incident occurred at 00:22 during the hours of darkness. The claimant is put to proof that the signage was illuminated and visible to anyone at the location at the material time. If they were not then it is argued that it is impossible for a driver to make an informed decision or enter into any contract with VCS Ltd.

8. Any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's £60 'Parking Charge Notice ('PCN')' or £100 if not paid within 28 days from the PCN notice.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. In addition to the original PCN penalty, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported added 'contractual costs' of £60. Not only is this an abuse of process as such costs not permitted (CPR 27.14) but the Defendant believes that the Claimant has not incurred contractual costs.

11. 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.

12. 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, as detailed below:

''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...''

13. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

14. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.


I believe the facts contained in this defence statement are true

Coupon-mad

Very good! Just needs a number 1 next to the first sentence, and the usual headings.

Mango79

Thank you. Fingers crossed it is enough :-)

Coupon-mad

No, that's just the first step.

Sounds like you need to re-read the NEWBIES thread post #2, the stuff under the red heading:

'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'

Also click on the link and read Bargepole's COURT PROCEDURES thread there.

The best prepared posters here, consistently report wins.

The badly prepped ones, struggle.

Don't be in that second group.