VCS parking in restricted area & claim from from CCBC

upstanding

Hey J just seen your earlier reply - thanks - was so busy tying up hadn't realised you had added to thread again- grateful for your input and advice..Fingers crossed this might be getting close to a defence I can submit soon

Egbert_Nobacon

If you are sure that this is Council land then the second part of 8 regarding Excel signs surely becomes irrelevant.

Some court decisions seem quite perverse and I don’t see anything wrong in pointing the court’s attention to previous decisions to strike out the claims.
This isn’t the Supreme Court you are facing part time DJs who sometimes fail to take into account things like POFA where they continually allow the dodgy add ons.

Our case wasn’t round a table but in a big boys court with the DJ presenting Gladstones case as they didn’t bother to turn up.
We won but she wouldn’t grant costs so you could argue that financially we would have been better off paying the initial £60.

Whatever you decide wish you good luck.

[Deleted User]

We won but she wouldn’t grant costs so you could argue that financially we would have been better off paying the initial £60.

Depending on the value of your time, this is potentially true in a lot of cases. It is, of course, what also keeps them in business.

I don’t see anything wrong in pointing the court’s attention to previous decisions to strike out the claims.

For clarity, i did not suggest that it was inappropriate to refer to cases per se, but merely that to set out the verbatim judgment (which is, in any case non binding) is not necessary. I certainly agree the bolt-ons shouldn't be there and need to be argued.

Snakes_Belly

Egbert_Nobacon wrote: »

If you are sure that this is Council land then the second part of 8 regarding Excel signs surely becomes irrelevant.
.

My past claim related to this car park and in the absence of SAR information it is difficult for the OP to defend the claim.

The car park is leased by Excel and the signs stating no parking were VCS. The signs at the entry to this car park are Excel. The OP has checked the ownership of Miller's lane which borders the Excel car park. There is no pavement on Millers lane and no demarcation between the land leased by Excel and Miller's lane. It is thought that the OP may have just edged onto the Excel Car Park. As there is no demarcation this would be quite easy to do.

VCS are suing the OP for a transgression which relates to land leased by Excel.

Snakes_Belly

The way that I see this is that if VCS did not want motorists that were on the road to encroach onto the car park leased to Excel they should have painted a demarcation line. The signage should have been in name of the leaseholder (Excel) and stated that the motorist should not park past the demarcation line.

It's possible that they may not be able to paint on the cobbled area as its a preserved area but that is their problem. They took the car park on knowing that there would be restrictions.

upstanding

thank you to all new responses - all input appreciated. SB as you are all too familiar with this car park you have got it exactly spot on. There are as you know 2 entrances to this carpark, one of the main street and the other through the nearby car park of the supermarket. So if one went through supermarket car park and drove along and then parked up on the road you don't actually encounter any signage at all. The other point is the PCN issued, states car was parked 'within units' of which there were 6 at the time now there are only 2 remaining but the car was parked on the opposite side of the road in front of the current remaining 2 units - so in essence PCN incorrectly completed. I'm unsure as to should I be highlighting this point much more firmly in paras 2 or 3, as to date have still not received anything back from SAR. Again thoughts appreciated...

upstanding

Have made slight amendments to para 6 and 7 by adding the following:

An alternative entrance to xxx through xxxx supermarket car park had no signage whatsoever.

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.

Also still unsure about point 13 and futhermore is there any value in, as mentioned in post 87 about highlighting the conflicting location details as completed on PCN?? If along the way past/present tense are mixed - please point out. Thanks in advance
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 XXX.
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. An alternative entrance to xxx through xxxx supermarket car park had no signage whatsoever.

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

The plans I have purchased from 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. 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.

Coupon-mad

This needs a paragraph number and you need to replace ''I have'' with 'the Defendant' has and make sure it's written in the third person throughout your defence:

The plans I have purchased from 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.

...and you know all those words about why the costs are not allowed, that you've now removed from the defence (Johnersh being a solicitor, I bow to his knowledge & experience over my own as a lay person)?

You are going to need them as a crib sheet at the hearing so print off a sheet with them on, so you know WHY the costs are not allowed and what the authorities for that, are.

I am worried that Ds are not going to grasp this at hearings now.

[Deleted User]

You can and perhaps should put whatever you think is most effective in your defence - it's your case not that of anyone on the forum!

BUT you need to prepare carefully for a hearing and to be assertive enough to ask for what you want. Phrases such as the below may be helpful, but for goodness sake, please do make notes before you go in, print off cases, whatever helps you to be as clear as possible and to get your case across the line.

"MAY I ADDRESS YOU SIR ON THE ENHANCED FEES THAT HAVE BEEN CHARGED OVER AND ABOVE THE PARKING CHARGE ITSELF."

You may even consider saying at the outset:
"THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS TO THE CLAIMANT'S CLAIM, THE CLAIM FOR THE PARKING CHARGE ITSELF AND THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL CHARGES, WHICH ARE SAID TO BE CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITH WHICH THE DEFENDANT ALSO TAKES ISSUE"

upstanding

Thanks noted about the 3rd person CM and JN - looks like I need to revisit removed paragraphs and read through and perhaps retain some elements of it and as you both reiterate need them as pointers/crib sheet - will peruse and offer up one last attempt before submitting hopefully tomorrow evening/Tuesday at the very latest as Keith P in early thread 2 or 3 confirmed deadline as Wednesday 24th. Grateful for all input so far and if there is anything else anybody thinks we have missed and that should be included please do post and let me know