Vehicle Control Services

NM123

I should give then registration number right?

beamerguy

6. The 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, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

You must make a lot more of the fake £60

READ THIS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

NM123

I have just seen this post it will not let me send link however it is about Vehicle Control Services discontinue Albert Street claim by parking pranster


Will this help my case

Thank you beamerguy I will adjust that

NM123

Does anyone know when VCS took over Excel car park because if I remeber correctly I have always known ALbert street car park in Bham to be under name of excell and not VCS

NM123

looks like albert street is still operating under Excel so hopefully this will help my defence

NM123

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, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked in Albert Street Car park .

3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether 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.

4. The defendant, cannot, with any reasonable certainty, state who the driver of the vehicle, registration **** ***, was, on the date XXXXX. Due to multiple persons having access to the vehicle, usually driven with ‘drive other vehicle’ insurance cover.

4.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

4.2 The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about really and is having to guess and cover all eventualities, which are either she was not driving the car as other members have had access to her car and believes she was driving as she has no recollection of this event and never avoids paying tariffs for parking.

4.3 The tariff was paid but a typo made with the VRN (or keypad system error) at the machine - a standard scam have 'form' for dodgy old Parkeon PDT machines that spit out void Pay & Display tickets through no fault of drivers.


4.4 The other possibility could be that time expired and she was late getting to her car, and therefore the charge of £185 is not in proportion to the time spent in the car park.

4.5 The Defendant also thinks that a ticket was purchased but could have fallen of the dash board when displayed.


4.6. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach any notice was given, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.

5. The defendant also has reason to believe that the Claimants Charge Notice documentation did not, on the date XXXXXXX, conform to the Protection of Freedom Acts’ 2012 schedule 4.

6. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) further 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and a further breach of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

7. 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.

7.1. Vehicle registration XXXX has not entered into a contract with Vehicle Control Services as the car park belongs to Excel Parking.

7.2. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car is in vontract with VCS, the terms of the sparse signage does not make it clear that the Defendant is entering a contract with them.

7.3. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.

7.4. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.

7.5. 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 contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra-proferentem principle.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

8.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.

8.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.

9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) further 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery and a further breach of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.



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


11. 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.

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.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name

Signature

Date

NM123

Hi Guys

How does the above sound

I think I may have put things that are not relevant so please help to fine tune this defence

Although I have a month when do I file the defence? Shall I wait for VCS to send me the info they have on my previous car

NM123

Also the Abuse of Process - do I add that in the above of witness statement

Claim number is F0DP201T District Judge Taylor
Southampton Court, 10th June 2019

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 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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 "

Le_Kirk

Defences should be written in the third person, which you mainly have but you have also slipped in a couple of "she" in your point 4.2. Also points 11 & 12 are the same. If your point 9 is true, you cold search the forum for Abuse of Process and add the points made by Coupon-mad partway down that thread, making sure you use the one about DJ Grand and the IOW decision.

beamerguy

YES .... The aim here is to hopefully get the judge to do what D J Taylor did .... kick out the case for abuse of process. Using DJ Grand just adds power

At the very least, you want the fake £60 taken out