Markham Retail Park Chesterfield - Now County Court Business Centre

Redx

they have 30 days to reply to your SAR, you are hoping their reply will come BEFORE this defence needs submitting, but do not hold your breath

any IAS contact was an APPEAL , not a defence

you are still working on your court defence, which is the first time you have been asked for any defence

any prior communications to the PPC and the IAS were appeals

dalew007

Wow, you lot are good.

dalew007

The other issue i have is that the NTK says parked in a restricted area but the letters say observed leaving the site.
Is there a defence that can say the NTK says one thing but letters say observed leaving site ?

This is why i cant get my head around what i need to write my defence against.

dalew007

Can i post my defence here for people to look over ?

Redx

yes , post it below (minus any personal details), plus if there NTK states something different than the POC on the claim form, this can be stated in the defence and in the WS too

the more errors they make , the better for you

dalew007

The PCN and the NTK say the same thing, it is the letters later from VCS that say observed leaving site.

I am typing the defence up to defend the parked in a restricted area.

Coupon-mad

The PCN and the NTK say the same thing, it is the letters later from VCS that say observed leaving site.

Mention that in the defence, that the Claimant seems not to know the basis of the alleged contravention and has misled the keeper in letters, both about the allegation and about the keeper's liability.

KeithP

Remember...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 29th July 2019 to file your Defence.

Just two weeks left now.

Tick... tick... tick...

dalew007

Here goes

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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 with registration ****** of which the Defendant was the Registered Keeper was parked at [location]

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle;. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. 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. These assumptions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and therefore there is no liability towards the Defendant.

4. 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.

5. The claimant’s Notice to Keeper indicates the Reason for Issue as ‘Parked in a restricted area in a car park’. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing a restircted area, the pictures taken show the car parked in a marked bay next to other vehicles. The car was parked for a matter of minutes and then driven away, no PCN was attached to the car but days later posted to the registered keeper which was written up after the event. This appears to be a victimised attack and an attempt to extort money from an unsuspecting innocent party.
5a. Furthermore letters from Vehicle Control Services seem not to know the basis of the alleged contravention and has misled the keeper in letters, both about the allegation and about the keeper's liability, letters posted to the registered keeper state "You were observed to leave site by our Patrol Officer"
b. The burden of proof shifts to Vehicle Control Solutions to prove otherwise, and to explain why their attendant watched a driver or occupant walk towards the edge of an undefined boundary and yet made no attempt to stop/warn the driver or even ascertain if a passenger had already been dropped at the door of the premises.
c. The attendant also had a legal duty under contract law, to mitigate any loss. In VCS v Ibbotson, Case No 1SE09849 16.5.2012: District Judge McIlwaine stated 'you say he left the premises...where does the premises start and where does the premises finish?’ The Defendant contends that Vehicle Control Solutions have neither demonstrated any evidence that there was a breach nor shown that their operative took any steps to mitigate any loss.

6. The signage does not demonstrate a map showing a restricted area of parking nor were there any writing in the bays stating a restricted area. Parking was free, the entrance and exit were not gated and the car obstructed nobody.
6a.The British Parking Association (BPA) code of Practice, of which the claimant is a member, states on this point: When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident, which you claim, was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. The claimant is put to strict proof to demonstrate with video or photographic evidence that the occupant(s) of the vehicle crossed a clearly defined boundary of the premises
6b. 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. No evidence has been provided to the defendant showing the claimant’s site boundary or the defendant actually leaving the site

7. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), 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, which in this case is £60. The Claimant includes an additional £100 in this claim, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery. It is apparent that apart from court fees incurred, any added legal fees/costs are simply made up by the Claimant.
7a. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will:
b. only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
c. resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

8. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'debt collection fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

9. If a parking breach did occur as alleged by the Claimant then this would be a matter for the landowner to pursue for any damages resulting from the trespass. The Claimant is put to strict proof that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehice Control Services and that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land and necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces parking charge notices pursuing payment by means of litigation.

10. A Parking Charge cannot be disguised as a fee or a sum in damages owed to a firm which does not own the land but allows cars to trespass upon it. The decision of the supreme court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

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. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the defendant is keeping a note of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

13. It is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Consequently, 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.

dalew007

Do private parking have different laws to council patrolled areas?
I know if a traffic warden hasn't fixed the PCN to your car and you drive off it is null and void?