VCS - County Court Claim

lloydie.t

Just in case someone has time to review, i have edited my defence with pertenant information regarding the use of a parking permit that has come to light. I will be submitting this defence at 15.30 today if no amendments are suggested.

beamerguy

lloydie.t wrote: »

Just in case someone has time to review, i have edited my defence with pertenant information regarding the use of a parking permit that has come to light. I will be submitting this defence at 15.30 today if no amendments are suggested.

Others will comment soon ..

Paragraph 7 and 12
VCS are not BPA members, they belong to the scam IPC

Paragraph 5 (THE FAKE £60)
You are not making good use of the information we have.
Three times now courts have ruled that this is Abuse of process
and you can add the text written by coupon-mad in post #14
of this thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+p

Whilst these cases were kicked out by the court in reference to POFA2012, VCS claim they do not rely on POFA2012 ?

REGARDLESS, they are attempting double recovery as follows:

In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant's legal representatives, VCS, have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. >>>> thanks to bargepole

You get one stab at this, please make sure the judge/court understands this

lloydie.t

Please find updated defence. Probably a lit late now but any additiional advice appreciated


DEFENCE - - - -


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


2. At all material times the defendant was only the registered keeper in this matter and not the driver.


3. The defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.

a. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
b. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and nor is a keeper obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

4. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver vehicle 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,

a. The Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4
b. The Claim fails to comply Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

5. The claim includes an additional unexplained amount of £60. We believe, the keeper cannot be held liable for more than the original NTK and deem the additional and unexplained costs of the claim to be disproportionate and disingenuous.

a. 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).
b. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.
c. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. I bring to your attention 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) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM) both of which used robo-claim models, 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…..''

6. The registered keeper questioned of the legality (authenticity) of the notice(s) sent via the post at the time of the contravention as they had not or ever parked at Preachers Lane.
7. The £100 amount demanded is a penalty and not a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss. The parking charge does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore is unfair as defined in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Parking charges cannot include business costs which would occur whether or not the alleged contravention took place. The amount claimed is excessive and is being enforced as a penalty for allegedly parking. As VCS are alleging a “failure to comply” yet cannot show this is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, which renders this charge unenforceable.


8. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As upheld by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.


9. VCS are not the owners of this land and as such they cannot form a contract with the driver, I wish VCS to provide me with a full un-redacted copy of their contract with the landowner which allows them to form such a contract that was formed on or before date of alleged contravention. A witness statement as to the existence of such a contract is not sufficient. I believe there is no contract with the landowner that gives VCS the legal standing to neither levy these charges nor pursue them in the courts in their own name as creditor. This was shown to be the case by District Judge McIlwaine in VCS v Ibbotson, Case no 1SE09849 16.5.2012 (transcript in the public domain). So as regards the strict requirements regarding the scope and wording of landowner contracts, VCS have failed to demonstrate their legal standing, which renders this charge unenforceable.


10. The Driver does not accept Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed. The Driver was given a parking permit by a resident of the adjacent building to park in Preachers Lane and the Driver had assumed that he the parking permit was valid and was given correct advice by the resident about the usage of the parking permit. No other information or advice about the usage of the parking permit provided on the signs.



11. No request was made on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) to identify the provider of the parking permit. We do not believe that provider of the parking permit has been approached to identify the Driver or remedy the alleged misuse of the parking permit.


12. Upon entering the site from the Preachers Lane, the referenced entrance signage is not clearly visible (at the time of contravention) because one being partially covered by foliage and positioned lowly and the other not facing the direction flow of traffic and placed high as to be not visible from the driving position. The only sign that is adjacent to where the alleged contravention took place is mounted in a position so high that it is not within the normal eyeline of a person, that the driver be given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. In either direction of leaving the area there are no other signs that are positioned significantly to draw attention. At the time of contravention there are no signs in any of the parking bays, on roadside lamps or posts.


13. The conditions imposed could not possibly be meet by the defendant as the terms would not have been presented to the defendant at the time the vehicle was parked and would have not have been read until after the claimant has said the conditions apply, a time previous to the agreement of the alleged contract.


As an aside, we would like to bring it to your attention that our request for Subject Access Request (Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR)) that was sent on the 2nd July 2019 has not been honoured and this has prejudiced the ability to form a full defence. The Claimant appears to be able to get the required information for themselves but not provide it to the defendant.



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 (paragraph 5), the claim not being a Genuine Pre-estimate of loss (paragraph 7), there being no legal standing to neither levy these charges nor pursue (paragraph 9)

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


Name

Signature


Date

lloydie.t

Sorry last minute edit to remove BPA

lloydie.t

So I submitted defence by email (in time). But judgement for claimant was awarded by default on th 31st July regardless.

KeithP

If you have proof that your Defence was filed before 4pm on 29th July you need to be insisting that the CCBC correct their mistake.


Subhuman reported something similar earlier today:
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=76107689#post76107689

Same date too - 29th July.

Quentin

Check the time it was recorded as being sent in your sent emails and the exact time the court acknowledged receipt

lloydie.t

Just spoke to the court and they have no record of the defence being submitted, even though I got a confirmation email.
Have to send all documents again including confirmation email and they will look into it.

anuvasile

Hi, I have win case at the county court and I don't know if the guy is own me the money so I ordered a questioning order to see if is working or has any income.
At that time. I knew where he lives, and the court sends the letter tho him and didn't respond, after that he moved to a new address and the court can't take further actions because they don't know where he lives.
I have been to Citizen advice, but can't help me.
What do I have to, I can't afford to pay for a solicitor.

Thank you,
Vasile

KeithP

anuvasile, it's not clear, but is your query anything to do with parking?

If so, then please start a new thread if after having read the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread you still have questions.