Vehicle Control Services

Le_Kirk

NM123 wrote: »

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 "

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, however see my post # 30 and make sure you add ALL of the words used by Coupon-mad and make sure that the quote "It IS ORDERED THAT..." is actually a quote by the DJ and not looking as if you have added it as a court instruction.

nosferatu1001

It gets very messy around 4

I lose complete track. Totally.

If EXCEL operate and VCS are brining the claim, then one of the first defence points MUST BE that the claimant has no standing, as they are not the legal entity on the signage, and that legal entity is the only one that can claim a contract was created.

Coupon-mad

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=albert

Read the results above.

Send VCS a reply like the first one there that went to BW Legal, as WELL as defending the claim, and they may well discontinue just before the hearing.

Read all the resulting PP blogs in that search. I just searched the site for the word 'Albert'.

And when you searched this MSE parking forum for the word 'Albert VCS defence' you maybe missed this one I wrote just a fortnight ago:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75941767#Comment_75941767

Show us a new draft based on that one. Searching is sooooo much better than posting on a lone thread and waiting for replies, as if it's all new!

NM123

Ok how does this sound - I tried to change some of it from what coupon-mad sent above- Thank you for that

I may have repeated myself -please any feedback is appreciated hopefully there wont be much changes to this. The only thing is the ticket was issued on a friday and normally and I would be at work and very rarely to I go into the city after work as I hate how busy it is so I always avoid it so Im not sure if I can highlight that as I dont no what the time of this PCN is

DEFENCE


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

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, registration XXXXXX. 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.
2.1 The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about really and is having to guess and cover all eventualities, which are either, the defendant was not driving the car as other members have had access to the car. The defendant has honest belief that any third parties using her car would have displayed a valid pay and display ticket, however as this charge is from over four years ago has no who to ask for the ticket.
2.2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in Albert Street car park could have been by a third party, and that the defendant was neither driving nor present.
2.3 The defendant believes if it was her driving then she has no recollection of this event and never avoids paying tariffs for parking.
2.4 The Defendant also thinks if they were parked there then a ticket would have been purchased but could have fallen of the dash board when displayed as the defendant never parks anywhere without purchasing a ticket and is a law abiding citizen.
2.5 The other possibility could be that time expired and the defendant was late getting to the car, and therefore the charge of £185 is not in proportion to the time spent in the car park.

3. The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the driver 'not purchasing the appropriate parking time'.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

7.1. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

7.2. In any case, the defendant has honest belief that the signage at the car park was in the name of Excel Parking Ltd (‘Excel’), not VCS. VCS therefore has no rights to bring a claim. Previous cases of this nature which have been discontinued by VCS are:
VCS v Zozulya A8QZ6666
VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955
VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C.

8. The Claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant/third party could only form a contract with Excel Parking LTD, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the by Excel Parking logo on the Pay and display ticket. The Claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim

9. Should the court bee minded to consider that:
i) a binding contract may exist between VCS and the driver, and that
ii) liability was transferred to the Defendant under the provision of the Schedule 4 of the protection of Freedom Act 2012 ‘(the POFA’),
then it is denied that a breach of the signed T&Cs occurred for the ………….

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. Even if the leasehold is shown to be excel, it does not follow the Claimant’s necessarily offered contact to the drivers at this car park, or had such authority from their sister firm, being legal entity Limited company.

11. It is denied that liability has passed to the registered keeper under the POFA, not least due to the wording of this Claimant's Notice to Keeper letters at the time (the Defendant is awaiting a Subject Access Request reply to review the wording).

12. 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 was 'improper'.

13. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to disclose the name of the driver and can prove to the Court that more than one person had access to and was insured to drive the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract, so the balance of probabilities is not tipped in the Claimant's favour if they are wrongly trying to assume that this keeper was the driver.

14. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished from the facts of this case in all respects, given the fact that the Beavis case was considered 'completely different' from ordinary monetary contracts (such as Pay & Display car parks) and centred upon the commercial justification of a deterrent in an otherwise free retail car park with no tariffs that could quantify an actual loss, where the signage was clear and plentiful, and the Defendant was the admitted driver who had seen the terms of the signs which effectively set the price for parking after two hours, at £85.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

15. CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) 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
(b) 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.

16. 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 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.

17. The Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum was held to already incorporate the minor expected costs of running an automated private parking business. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

18. 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.

19. The 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 contract 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.

20. 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 and the other, an IPC member, yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:

20.1. ''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...''

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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, specifically in this case due to the abuse of process in:

(i) attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

(ii) attempting to claim a parking charge when the tariff was paid.

(iii) attempting to recover a sum from a keeper, out with the POFA, based on a bare assumption of who was driving and improper reliance upon the law of agency which is wholly unsupported by the applicable rules of law.


Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


Name


Signature


Date

NM123

Cost of claim is identical to previous post

NM123

Omg I have just got home and I have another county court claim from vcs on Albert street for June 2015- they are really going to town with this arnt they?
They must think they can win hence taking it to court

Should I settle as it’s making me anxious however paying £400 in total for parking is ridiculous and absurd

My fear is if it goes to court and I lose will by balance be more?

I don’t want to pay this and I really want to fight it but I don’t recall anything at all and my gut is saying fight it

Please help

Please

NM123

I’ve amended my defence do you think it's ok now?

beamerguy

NM123 wrote: »

Omg I have just got home and I have another county court claim from vcs on Albert street for June 2015- they are really going to town with this arnt they?
They must think they can win hence taking it to court

Should I settle as it’s making me anxious however paying £400 in total for parking is ridiculous and absurd

My fear is if it goes to court and I lose will by balance be more?

I don’t want to pay this and I really want to fight it but I don’t recall anything at all and my gut is saying fight it

Please help

Please

VCS going around all the old graveyards. Typical hooray henry's
A court will not allow inflated charges and lies.

Have you read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

Your job is to ensure the judge understands this Abuse of Process
and worst of all, VCS will have signed a statement of truth confirming the Abuse of Process is true ???

I sense another good whooping for VCS in court

KeithP

NM123 wrote: »

They must think they can win hence taking it to court

No, they think they can scare you into paying. That's all.

NM123 wrote: »

Should I settle as it’s making me anxious however paying £400 in total for parking is ridiculous and absurd

Looks like their tactics are close to working.

Don't be a victim.

Coupon-mad

If you lose, the balance would be LESS!

Omg I have just got home and I have another county court claim from vcs on Albert street for June 2015- they are really going to town with this arnt they?

It's just another claim to them, not personal. And they probably don't even realise they already have one in play for the other PCN.

They must think they can win hence taking it to court

Not at all. This is all about intimidating people and a coincidence that they filed another case now, among the hundreds they probably file every month or so.

Should I settle as it’s making me anxious however paying £400 in total for parking is ridiculous and absurd

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

You are about to win both cases.

Add to your defence above, the words you find that I wrote for defences when the PPC has filed two claims, found when you search:

Two claims? abuse of process

It may not be the first result, but search for POSTS not threads, showing those words.