VCS Court Claim

UKteak51

Hi everyone

As the registered keeper I received a PCN because my car stopped for 9 seconds on the roads at Doncaster airport in Oct 2015. Yesterday I received the Claim from Northamton CCBC.
The LBC was received over a month ago and I requested a SAR and a compliant LBC I have the SAR but no updated LBC.

I have completed the acknowledgement of service online so all I have to do now is put the defence together.
Reading the post on this forum it appears the there is a lot of advice and what I hopefully understand so far.
1. the PCN issued in 2015 may not be compliant
2. Doncaster RHA is subject to bylaws so the PCN is incorrect/invalid.

I would be very grateful if anyone could point me at what to do next.

Many thanks.

beamerguy

And did VCS add a fake £60 to their claim ???

You must make clear to the court of ABUSE OF PROCESS as seen here where a solicitor, BWLegal whose claim was kicked out as ABUSE OF PROCESS ...... they added a fake £60

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

Redx

Read all the other recent RHA court case threads and base your draft defence on theirs, I posted some links yesterday in another similar thread, so more research please

Email a SAR to the DPO at VCS asap with proof of ID, like a scan of the N1 form

And post the Issue date from the N1 form below too

UKteak51

Hi Redx

Thanks for the info the date on the N1 is 28th June and I acknowledge today. I'll search RHA.

KeithP

UKteak51 wrote: »

Thanks for the info the date on the N1 is 28th June and I acknowledge today.

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 31st July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a whole month 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.

Coupon-mad

I'll search RHA.

I'd search VCS Airport defence to find the more recent ones.

There is a defence if stopping in an emergency, as the byelaws expressly allow that.

Otherwise you will struggle to argue against the AWFUL (but sadly 'persuasive' level) appeal decision by a seemingly gullible and spoon-fed Judge, in VCS v Ward (search for that too, you need to understand it - the guy stopped for about 5 seconds...).

Coupon-mad

UKteak51 wrote: »

Hi Redx

Thanks for the info the date on the N1 is 28th June and I acknowledge today. I'll search RHA.

Where is your defence draft?

Here is one with similar facts and relevant case law, that someone did earlier:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5967438/claim-form-for-parking-at-doncaster-airport

HTH

UKteak51

Hi

It's taken a while but here is my draft defence if anyone could look at it and advise I'd be very grateful.

DEFENCE

I am the Defendant, XXX and reside at xxx and it is admitted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle registration xxxx on the day of this event.

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

2. The Claimant has failed to follow the Code of Practice (COP) of their Trade Body, as regards where land is subject to Byelaws in which the airport access road is one.
Guidance on Policing at Airports page 27 clearly states;-
Privately owned landside roads.
“With few exceptions, the majority of airports are privately owned. One consequence of this is that illegal parking cannot be de-criminalised as has been the case in most large towns and cities. As a result, the police will be responsible for enforcing parking regulations and bylaws. Close liaison with the operators is essential to ensure security, safety and smooth running of the airport. Police officers may need to become more involved in traffic management to a greater extent than in other environments.
Doncaster airport is subject to bylaws

3. The claimant had confirmed in writing to the keeper that they were not citing the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) nor stated that the keeper was liable for the charge. Yet they were issuing the driver with the penalty at the registered keepers address.

4. Abuse of Process. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 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.
Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County court. 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:

5 The PCN was issued following Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage and sent through the post. The Defendant should have been offered 21 days to pay at the reduced rate of £60, however, the defendant was only offered 14 days. The British Association actually state in their COP that a PCN sent through the Postal Service should give the same time to the recipient as one issued on a windscreen.

6. The Claimant stated in some of their correspondence that they intend to reply upon ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 should this matter go to Court, however, that case is actually in no way similar in the location, circumstances nor signage.

7. The terms and conditions upon entering this stretch of private land were not clearly displayed at the entrance or at prominent locations throughout the area..
The Claimant’s signage was poorly located in such a position that it could be deemed dangerous as drivers unfamiliar with the area would need to take their concentration from the the road for a considerable amount of time in order to read it’s terms and conditions. The signs were erected without planning permission which was applied for in 2017 and granted on the 23 June 2017. It is also difficult to see how the claimant complies with condition 06 (a) of the planning permission. Since the alleged contravention new signs have been erected. It can be inferred that the previous signage was not comprehensive enough to satisfy any Court

7.1 Even if the signage did offer a licence to park at a price (rather than simply saying 'No Stopping' which would be forbidding wording which cannot also be painted as offering any contractual licence), it is averred that the signs at this location are obscured by large banner 'flags' and the font size is too small and the words too many to be safely read while driving from a roundabout in traffic. It is an ironic fact that the only way any alleged 'no stopping' signs could be read, would be to stop.

7.2 If it is the Claimant's case that the area is intended as a 'no stopping zone' then they cannot also offer parking at a price, if the landowner (Airport) in fact intends to prohibit stopping. If cars are never authorised to stop under any circumstances (stopping at the roundabout in accordance with normal driving practice, stoping or waiting to turn right at a junction would incur the penalty), then any breach would be a matter that falls firmly under the tort of trespass.!

8. The Particulars of Claim state that they believe 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. 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.

9. The Defendant did not park or stop their vehicle as suggested by the PCN in which it states. “The Terms and Conditions to which the Driver Agreed” (not the registered keeper) “The alleged Contravention was detected and recorded by Mobile Traffic Enforcement Cameras CCTV) at the site on XX/XX/201X and the period of stopping (waiting/parking) resulting in the contravention is identified above “ (denied). The Defendant was neither waiting or parking..

10. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. On each letter B W Legal mentions the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 stating that they intend to use this case should this matter go to Court. It is suggested that because of their conduct they should not be allowed to pursue future PCNs via Money Claim Online as part of the terms of making a claim is that they cannot threaten people with Court cases to harass others. They have clearly done so in this instance.

11 Letters from both VCS and BW Legal all purport to claim differing amounts with varying additional charges added with little or no explanation of these charges are incurred.

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.

13. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.

UKteak51

Hi

Has anyone had a chance to look at my draft defence. I know I have until Wednesday to file it but I'd really like to get it sent .

Thanks for the help.

UKteak51