VCS parking in restricted area & claim from from CCBC

Egbert_Nobacon

Most defendants have never been near a court before and will find it very nerve racking.
Trying to go through crib sheets while under pressure isn’t easy for the inexperienced.

That’s why I like Coupon-mad’s approach in trying for a strike out avoiding the stress of court.

I’m sure Johnersh has the correct legal procedure for those with the legal training but would expect the court to give a little leeway to an unrepresented layperson trying to present their case probably for the first time.

Snakes_Belly

The Excel sign by the Travelodge sign at the front is hidden from view by other signs and clutter. It's also on the other side of Miller's Lane when you approach from Derby street. On my main thread there is a reply from Edna Basher to a post about clutter. The case relates to a bus lane but it is relevant with regard to confusing signage. There is a hell of a lot of signage in that area much of it not parking related but in similar colours to the parking signs.

I think that you will have to defend this as best you can without really knowing what the transgression is.

When they supply the WS it will be easier to rip that to pieces.

Snakes_Belly

On the plus side the PPC's representatives will be totally confused by the car park and surrounding area. They will not understand it from the plan sent by the PPC. It's hard enough to understand when you are there yourself let alone from the plan.

The representative in my first visit to court (which was re-scheduled) asked me questions about the plan which I helped her out with. Bit of a mistake but as the case was re-scheduled it did not matter. Could have shot myself in the foot there. Think Private Pike and tell them nothing.

Le_Kirk

I offer this as a solution: -
If the defence contains only headings about abuse of process regarding the additional costs as Johnersh suggests, could the rest of the words (now removed from op upstanding's defence) be added as evidence at Witness Statement time? This removes the need for crib sheets and/or the fact that it might be forgotten in the heat of battle as per Egbert Nobacon's valid point but it does get the words before the court.

Shoot me down in flames if it is a nonsense.

Coupon-mad

It could be in a WS instead but:

- that's likely to be too late for a Judge to strike a case out

- it's double the work for us, and we will drown, and we will drop the ball, and some people will lose and pay full costs as they'll have missed the objection to costs out completely.

At the moment WS stage is easier for us than defence stage. Everyone chips in at WS stage and encourages the OPs to 'write the story of facts and what happened and also tear apart their evidence' (job done by the OP, not us).

If we had to go through everyone's WS with the same fine tooth comb we do for defences with all the drafts and hand-holding, then I think we will all get so bored and jaded we will give up.

Le_Kirk

Noted, 'twas just a thought!

upstanding

hi having lost yet another night's sleep over all this - thoughts going around in my head were to reintroduce the original para 12 I had removed given that the majority of OP's have used them in their defence statements and it doesn't appear to have done any harm thus far. Thanks LK that does sound like a sensible alternative and appreciate the suggestion - it seems like a mine field and recognising that there are OP's who are legally experienced along with the experience of the long standing forum posters who appear to have had their 'tried and trusted' measures/templates do the trick, i feel drawn along the lines of following the tried and trusted if only to throw everything at it in one fail swoop. will revisit and revise draft yet again and post up shortly. I will bear in mind your valid point of including in witness statement as well - not sure how to even start that part yet, just really need to submit defence first

upstanding

Hey CM sorry you must have posted whilst I was typing - as you see from above I had decided through the long dark hours to go back to your tried and trusted measures - so will be updating shortly - I really appreciate your input

Coupon-mad

I understand why Johnersh said to remove stuff but IMHO it can't hurt, from a litigant in person, and helps you see the wood for the trees later, I hope.

The point is we help people remotely and need to ensure you all know the issues and take them through to the hearing, and if we don't address the fake costs and the PPCs' mendacity with a sledgehammer at defence stage, I fear people will miss it entirely.

upstanding

So have rehashed/revised and posted up again CM and OP's for final attempt - just wondering if point 7 appears to contradict point 6 (felt as we aware there was a No parking at anytime sign we have to acknowledge it - I have located google earth map to show exactly where the sign was situated within the cobbled area, around the perimeter of the car park that we were not parked in the hope it shows how far back from the road it was and as SB has pointed out these signs have changed multiple times over the years. So question am i ok to leave points 6 and7 as they are or try to combine into one point acknowledging it was there but sign not relevant to place car was parked and we could not have disadvantaged anybody in regards access or parking. Input welcomed

6. 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, notwithstanding that it is obscured by overgrowth at the entrance of car park accessed from XXX Street. The alternative approach to this car park with access from xxxx supermarket offers no signage. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract, failing to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner for any person reading them.
7. A No parking at anytime, stated Terms and Conditions apply but there were no Terms and Conditions listed on said sign. That sign is forbidding there was no offer of parking, and therefore there could be no “contract" and hence no breach.

Re-revised DRAFT – VCS (XX/XX/2015)

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 was the registered keeper, was on xx/xx/2015 parked on a public road leading to xxxxx. This does not meet the definition of 'relevant land' within the meaning set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3. The Defendants vehicle was not parked at the location claimed by the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant has no cause of action. Furthermore, where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked is public land, over which the Claimant is unable to demonstrate any standing. Evidence of this will be provided in due course.

4. The place of the alleged transgression is given as "restricted area in a privately owned car park at xxx "which contains several registered parcels of land as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.

5. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxx was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxx;
The fact that this is not 'relevant land' means that a registered keeper cannot be held liable under the Protection Of Freedoms Act. In the alternative, the claimant is put to proof as to the identify of the driver.

6. 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, notwithstanding that it is obscured by overgrowth at the entrance of car park accessed from XXX Street. The alternative approach to this car park with access from xxxx supermarket offers no signage. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract, failing to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner for any person reading them.

7. A No parking at anytime, stated Terms and Conditions apply but there were no Terms and Conditions listed on said sign. That sign is forbidding there was no offer of parking, and therefore there could be no “contract" and hence no breach.

The plans purchased by the Defendant from the Land Registry confirm ownership of the road and that is neither VCS nor Excel. The road is subject to Local Authority enforcement and it is illegal for a company or individual to issue non-statutory parking charges on such land.

8. 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. The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 02498820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. VCS were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it.

9. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver and as such, the Defendant believes that his personal details, have in this instance, been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant.

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 and/or Agent, to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as Practice Direction 16 7.5. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate at xxxx as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice A 7.1 which states that If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have written authorisation from the Landowner and/or their appointed Agent. The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the Landowner and/or their appointed agent requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

12. In respect of the unspecified costs that have been added onto the original Parking Charge Notice of £100, the Claimant should be put to proof that any costs have been incurred (at all), other than court fees. There are no Terms and Conditions advising that an additional £60 will be incurred for what the Claimant refers to as the ‘outstanding balance’. Example of which would be a default charge of £12 for missed payment on a credit card; this being clearly highlighted within the Terms and Conditions which one is aware of when agreeing a contract with Credit Card Company. In contrast there is no such agreement here.

13. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

Civil Procedure Rule 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.

14. 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 previous debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

15. 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.


16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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 District Judge 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.

The District Judge stated:-

''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...''

The Defendant also acknowledges that on 11th July 2019 District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court Southampton, struck out claim number FODP163T for abuse of process.


19. 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 conduct from the outset has been intimidating, and misleading and in terms of the added costs alleged.


20. 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 inflated and unreasonable costs which they are not entitled to.

21. I refer to the Doctrine of de minimis and would suggest that the Claimant be put to proof that this alleged transgression is of significant bearing for the Court to deem it worthy of judicial scrutiny.


I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.