Vehicle Control Services

NM123

Hi I know this may be dumb but I have tried searching for above as suggested by coupon-mad and I dont no how to find searching post and not thread

I put in two claims? abuse of process and it searches individual works and there are thousands of post

Does anyone know where this post is?

Thanks in advance

NM123

Is this what I need to add:

VCS have issued two separate claims this is an abuse of process and an attempt to inflate costs/charges; the three claims should be consolidated into one claim.

Le_Kirk

On first page of the parking sub-forum, click on "Search this Forum" Advanced Search, enter your search terms, enter Coupon-mad as the user name, down the bottom left hand side of the dialogue box you are in, are two radio buttons, click on the one marked posts. hit search now.

Redx

Or click on forum tools on the banner and change it to show posts, add your search words and enter to search

There is also an advanced option to refine a Search within that set of tools as well

NM123

Or this :

6. The court is invited to take note that the claimant has issued another claim, (number xxxx) against the Defendant on date XXX, and with substantially identical particulars. It is submitted that this constitutes an abuse of process, making the defendant potentially liable for two instances of issues fees, solicitor costs, and hearing fees. In their quest to maximise profits, VCS has chosen to ignore the overriding objective of Civil Procedure Rules 1.1, regarding the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. In the event that one or both of these claims is even allowed to go forward at this stage, the Defendant reserves the right to ask the court to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and to apply appropriate sanctions against the claimant.

7. Further to the above, the Claimant will be put to strict proof that he made two separate applications to the DVLA for the Defendant’s details.

NM123

I did exactly what you said and I keep getting this:

The following errors occurred with your search:
Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.

I tried different terms but not working I click the bottom box from thread to post
but still no luck

NM123

Ok I think I know why it didnt work - I typped is lower case c for Coupon-mad

SO I searched it and I got this


The Court is invited to take note that the Claimant has issued two current claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars.

The issuing of separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In the event that similar matters proceed to claim issue, they must be particularised as a single claim and not as multiple separate cases, otherwise (as an extreme analogy) a builder purportedly owed money by an individual customer, could file a separate claim for each brick laid.

The facts of these cases are duplicated in every respect: Claimant, Defendant, location, parking charge breach allegation, and added unrecoverable 'debt collection' and/or 'legal' costs for each case, that are an abuse of process in themselves, given that the Claimant did not in fact ever incur such costs and that they are disallowed by virtue of the ceilings set in the POFA 2012 and the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Multiple claims and disproportionate added costs run contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and vacate the other hearing, and the Defendants asks that these two cases be put before a Judge at the earliest opportunity - before allocation - to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for a gross abuse of process and to strike out the imaginary and unrecoverable added 'damages/debt collector' costs, which do not exist even once, let alone multiple times per claim.

Is this what I need to add? if so what paragraph number shall I put it in as? should it be at the start of defence

Le_Kirk

That's the one and I think it normally goes at the end of each defence and every time you contact the CCBC or court (when it is allocated). Coupon-mad always advised adding it to every communication until someone does something about it. You just need to check the words to make sure it is relevant to your case.

Redx

The name had to be exact, so you are correct

Include it in every letter or statement or contact until a judge does it

NM123

Awesome so this is my final draft please you have a look an see if its correct as im still struggling with the technical wording so want to make sure it flows and Im not getting all mixed up


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 take note that the Claimant has issued two current claims, numbers XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX, against the Defendant with substantially identical particulars.

The issuing of separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In the event that similar matters proceed to claim issue, they must be particularised as a single claim and not as multiple separate cases, otherwise (as an extreme analogy) a builder purportedly owed money by an individual customer, could file a separate claim for each brick laid.

The facts of these cases are duplicated in every respect: Claimant, Defendant, location, parking charge breach allegation, and added unrecoverable 'debt collection' and/or 'legal' costs for each case, that are an abuse of process in themselves, given that the Claimant did not in fact ever incur such costs and that they are disallowed by virtue of the ceilings set in the POFA 2012 and the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

Multiple claims and disproportionate added costs run contrary to the overriding objective of CPR 1.1, the disposal of cases justly and at proportionate cost. The Court is invited to consolidate the claims to be determined at a single hearing, and vacate the other hearing, and the Defendants asks that these two cases be put before a Judge at the earliest opportunity - before allocation - to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimant for a gross abuse of process and to strike out the imaginary and unrecoverable added 'damages/debt collector' costs, which do not exist even once, let alone multiple times per claim.

24. 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