County Court claim VCS

SteveTa

I'm posting on behalf of my mum who is 72. 4 years ago she parked in a car park in Darlington and purchased a ticket for £4 which covered the full day. Unfortunately th e ticket was upside down and she received a penalty notice. She sent the ticket off and they maintained the charge. She then went through popla and they found against her. I believe she put she must have put the ticket the wrong way up I'm not sure if she acknowledged If she was the driver.

Over the proceeding years she has received letters from various companies including bw legal and some debt collection agencies. At the end of last year she threw most the correspondence out as she thought they had relented. She does still have the flimsy ticket. She has now received papers from Northampton court from Jake burgess.

Particulars of Claim
The Claim is for a breach of contract for
breaching the terms and conditions set on
private land. The Defendant's vehicle - - - - - ,
was identified in the Bondgate, Salt
Yard on the 13/05/2015 in breach of the
advertised terms and conditions; namely
parked without clearly displaying a valid
ticket or permit. At all material times the
Defendant was the registered keeper and/or
driver. The terms and conditions upon
entering private land were clearly displayed
at the entrance and in prominent locations.
The sign entering private land was the acceptance of
the offer hereby entering into a contract by
conduct. The signs specifically detail the
terms and conditions and the consequences of
failure to comply, namely a parking charge
notice will be issued, and the Defendant has
failed to settle the outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the
parking charge notice, contractual costs and
interest.

The signs have changed in the car park since then and my mum no longer has photos. They have not provided details of the signage at the time and unfortunately I can't remember what they were like. The car park and some signage can be found if you google magistrate bondgate, darlington (can't post links as new poster)

I wondered if anyone could assist with the wording of a defence. Are any of the following points relevant?

Taking 4 years to issue court proceedings is there any abuse on process arguments in civil court.

Providing no evidence of their authority to enforce the debt?

The bond gate, salt gate is not a recognised location if you google it. The ticket my mum still has says then bond gate car park.

Thank you in advance for any assistance anyone can provide.

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

SteveTa

Its the 17th June 2019 but after I read guidance on here I got my mum to go straight on so you get more time.

KeithP

SteveTa wrote: »

Its the 17th June 2019 but after I read guidance on here I got my mum to go straight on so you get more time.

I guess that means your Mum has done the Acknowledgement of Service.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th June, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Loads of time to produce a 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.

Of course everywhere I have said 'you' or 'your' I mean the Defendant.

SteveTa

Yes the acknowledgement of service is what she has completed. Thank you for getting back so quickly.

KeithP

You now need to be reading post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - link in my earlier post - where you will find many Defence examples and plenty of guidance to help you create a winning Defence.

Redx

I do not believe that she got a PENALTY charge notice

VCS issue PARKING charge Notices, or PCN for short, this will be what arrived

she needs to email a SAR to the DPO at VCS and get all theirs docs, pics and data on her and the vehicle (add the VRM details), also atatch a scan or pic of the V5C as proof of ID to this sar email (GDPR , or DPA if you like)

the statute for small claims is 6 years in England and Wales (5 years in Scotland) , so 4 years is within the time limit , so they do not relent and the paperwork should have been kept for over 6 years to be sure

their added fees are an abuse of process, see the thread by beamerguy and the comments by Coupon-mad to see who said it and why (DJ Grand and DJ Taylor)

beamerguy

Taking 4 years to issue court proceedings is there any abuse on process arguments in civil court.

Well, they have up to 6 years in E&W, just the same as you could.
HOWEVER, if they have added interest because of their delay, that would be unreasonable and doubtful a judge would allow that.

BUT .... the main source of abuse is adding fake amounts to the claim such as £60

Read this
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75929156#Comment_75929156

This is ABUSE OF PROCESS and a judge must be pointed to this with the view of dismissing the case

Couple this to a signed statement by the PPC stating it is a "statement of truth" ???? such a statement would agree to ABUSE OF PROCESS

SteveTa

]Thank you for all the help so far. I have asked that requests the info from VCS although it states they have 30 days to reply. I have managed to locate some of the correspondence which shows them inflating the cost from £100 to £160 very early on. I know that the signs have changed in the car park since and unfortunately my mum cant remember what they were like at the time. Obviously they will have to demonstrate the signage was clear so is it worth mentioning in the defence that due to the passage of time she cant remember the signage been clear not so that they are put to strict proof in regard to the signage at the time?

Obviously it will need restructuring and I will put specific dates for letters etc where I have them but am I missing anything content wise for the points to cover;

I confirm I purchased a ticket for £4 for the entire days parking in a car park in Darlington which I still hold a copy of and that ticket was placed on the dashboard of my car.

The ticket is flimsy and no means of affixing it in any particular manner were provided.

I have received various correspondence from companies named BW Legal, Debt Recovery Plus Ltd (At least x 3) and Vehicle Control Services. These letters have included demands for payment of the falsely inflated amount of £160. This amount is maintained in the court papers.

I am unclear in what capacity the claimant is claiming to be the creditor. It is not clear whether they are the land-holder/owner and, in the absence of written authority from the land-holder in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Para 7.2, “If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.”, has no legal capacity to bring the claim. If the display of signs was sufficient, the BPA would have had no need to include this condition in its Code of Practice.



I would ask that the claim be dismissed on the following basis
Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- 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.

- 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 or 'legal fees' 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. The claimants decision to take 4 years to instigate action and to attempt to claim £60 of interest would be equally disingenuous.

- The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. 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.

- Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

- 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.

- 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). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge 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.

- 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 (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:
''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...''

- 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.

- 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.

- 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

Is there any mileage including reference to the article where I understand there signage was found to be misleading from May 2015?

For info the amount claimed is £185 with a court fee of £25, legal rep costs listed as £0 so their appears to be no reasoning for the additional £60 they are attempting to claim.

Thanks again for the help and if anyone has any feedback that would be great.

Snakes_Belly

I would look at fluttering ticket cases. It's where the wind blows the ticket over or the ticket slips off the dashboard. Judges have tended to throw these out.

This PPC is very litigious and it's surprising that they have not proceeded with this earlier if they thought that it had merit.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your mother's MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.