Claim Form - Failing to display Blue Badge

KeithP

RoyalBlue82 wrote: »

Claim date is 3rd July 2019.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect 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.

RoyalBlue82

The bay was very faded and not signed as a disabled bay, and was (either negligently or deliberately by the Claimant) a 'concealed pitfall or trap' of the type highlighted in Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The driver had the honest belief that this was an ordinary bay or a parent and child bay. The driver was pregnant and had their baby as a passenger, who was only 8 months old and in a bulky half-body cast for Hip Dysplasia, a long term condition that certainly met the definition of disability as a protected characteristic within the meaning in the Equality Act 2010. Even if the Claimant can demonstrate a clearly marked disabled bay to the satisfaction of the court, there is no cause of action against a protected carer of a baby who had need of a wider bay, under the applicable law.

Noticed when inserting this into my statement that I'm using the term 'Defendant' and this paragraph uses 'driver'.

Does this matter, can I mix the two, or should I use one or the other? Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful, prompt advice so far. It is hugely appreciated.

KeithP

RoyalBlue82 wrote: »

The bay was very faded and not signed as a disabled bay, and was (either negligently or deliberately by the Claimant) a 'concealed pitfall or trap' of the type highlighted in Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The driver had the honest belief that this was an ordinary bay or a parent and child bay. The driver was pregnant and had their baby as a passenger, who was only 8 months old and in a bulky half-body cast for Hip Dysplasia, a long term condition that certainly met the definition of disability as a protected characteristic within the meaning in the Equality Act 2010. Even if the Claimant can demonstrate a clearly marked disabled bay to the satisfaction of the court, there is no cause of action against a protected carer of a baby who had need of a wider bay, under the applicable law.

Noticed when inserting this into my statement that I'm using the term 'Defendant' and this paragraph uses 'driver'.

Does this matter, can I mix the two, or should I use one or the other? Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful, prompt advice so far. It is hugely appreciated.

You should not mix the two.

It was the driver who read the signs. It was the driver that parked the vehicle.

In my opinion, that quoted text is fine as it is.

RoyalBlue82

You cannot, and must not, mix the two.

It was the driver who read the signs. It was the driver that parked the vehicle.

In my opinion, that quoted text is fine as it is.

Thanks, sorry to labour the point, but does that mean I should be changing the word defendant to driver for all parts of my defence?

KeithP

The defendant and driver may be the same person, but they are two different roles.

Coupon-mad

RoyalBlue82 wrote: »

Thanks, sorry to labour the point, but does that mean I should be changing the word defendant to driver for all parts of my defence?

No.

Is your wife the Defendant? If so, it may be better to admit she was driving in this case, as it's a more honest stance at the hearing.

KeithP

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is your wife the Defendant?

Para 1 of the Defence starts:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle...

RoyalBlue82

No.

Is your wife the Defendant? If so, it may be better to admit she was driving in this case, as it's a more honest stance at the hearing.

Yes, she is the Defendant. No issue in admitting this, just wanted to make sure I got the terminology correct throughout the document. Based on this, would you say use driver or defendant?

Coupon-mad

Good, missed that!

So the bit I suggested needs to actually say 'the Defendant' not 'driver'.

RoyalBlue82

Ok, so here's v2 of my defence letter below. All feedback hugely appreciated!

In The County Court
Claim No:xxxxx
Between
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

xxxx (Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number xxxxx on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant was clearly displaying a valid parking ticket and was parked in a bay that didn’t have didn’t have any clear signage or markings to highlight it as a disabled parking bay. The bay was very faded and not signed as a disabled bay, and was (either negligently or deliberately by the Claimant) a 'concealed pitfall or trap' of the type highlighted in Parkingeye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The Defendant had the honest belief that this was an ordinary bay or a parent and child bay.

3. The Defendant was pregnant and had their baby as a passenger, who was only 8 months old and in a bulky half-body cast for Hip Dysplasia, a long term condition that certainly met the definition of disability as a protected characteristic within the meaning in the Equality Act 2010. Even if the Claimant can demonstrate a clearly marked disabled bay to the satisfaction of the court, there is no cause of action against a protected carer of a baby who had need of a wider bay, under the applicable law.

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

5. The Defendant has attempted to enter into meaningful correspondence with the Claimant to try and resolve, but has received nothing but automated e-mails in response and no opportunity to use POPLA. The Defendant sent an appeal email, but never received any reply or POPLA reference number.

6. The Claimant has shown a blatant abuse of process, their Letter Before Claim didn’t comply with the requirements of Annex A Para 2 of the Practice Direction on Pre-action Protocol.

7. On 01/02/2016 the Defendant was informed by ZZPS Limited (acting on behalf of VCS) that their case was on hold and they would contact the Defendant after further dialogue with VCS. The defendant never received any response on this matter. The next correspondence was a Letter Before Claim, 3 ½ years later.

8. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100.


- 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.

- 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.


- It is trite law that non-existent and untrue 'legal costs' are also unrecoverable. 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.

- Many informed Court Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts, such as these cases, struck out in recent months without a hearing, due solely to the pretence of adding 'damages' blatantly made up out of thin air.

(a) In Claim number F0DP163T on 11th July 2019, District Judge Grand sitting at the County Court at Southampton, struck out an overly inflated (over the £100 maximum Trade Body and POFA 2012 ceiling) parking firm claim without a hearing for that reason.
(b) In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor 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. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) where the abuse is inherent in the business model.

- The Order was identical in striking out all such claims without a hearing. - The judgment for these three example cases 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...''

- 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 dishonest in terms of the added costs alleged.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date