Ccbc Albert Street vcs

KeithP

JanerRXC wrote: »

So my question was. On the particulars of claim it states that the 'defendants vehicle was identified in the Albert Street, brimingham on 07/05/2016'

Now Albert Street Birmingham is a public highway. They obviously mean Albert Street car park but that's not stated.

Is this just a technicality? surly the claim form should be absolutely correct?

Just an insignificant technicality. Things are more relaxed in a Small Claims environment.

JanerRXC

I've not received any letters for a long time and ignored the ones I received before as I was under the impression they were !!!!!!!!. But maybe I should have appealed.
I vaguely remember the pcn. But I wasn't the driver and the driver didn't actually Park on the car park. But over stayed the 'grace period' So here I am :-/

The_Deep

Things are more relaxed in a Small Claims environment.

Is this another way of saying that scammers do not need to tell the truth, the whole truth … ?

JanerRXC

So I shouldn't mention this on my defence?

KeithP

The_Deep wrote: »

Things are more relaxed in a Small Claims environment.

Is this another way of saying that scammers do not need to tell the truth, the whole truth … ?

With your experience TD, I am sure you are in a better position to answer that than me.

JanerRXC

Can someone check my defence please?

Claim number *****

Between vehicle control services

And

****

Defence

The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


The facts are that the vehicle, registration ******, of which the defendant is the registered keeper. Was not parked on albert street but entered and left after deciding it does not want to park there.


Vehicle control services are not the lawful claimant, as all signage state excel parking therefore no claim can be made from VCS.


The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time in question.


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.


It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.


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 unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


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 land owner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation


The protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4, at section 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 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, the claim includes £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be a double recovery.


In summary it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Thanks

Coupon-mad

if this is Albert St, copy one already written recently, by searching the forum for ALBERT.

There is do much more to say in defence re that place! You have missed the fact the signs changed from VCS to Excel depending on a whim, etc.

JanerRXC

I've since found photos of that car park from 2016 and the signs do state the contract is with vehicle control services. But the logos are still excel. Im now not sure whether to add that to my defence.
Vcs have sent me all the info and it states the car was on site for 24 minutes. Im unsure if my ntk is pofa compliant. As I wasnt the driver at the time but I was in the car. The driver dropped me off in town then she left but obviously overstayed the grace period.

Coupon-mad

Im unsure if my ntk is pofa compliant

Surely it's easy to see it is NOT? In 2016 I am sure they used to put ''we can hold you liable on the assumption the keeper was the driver'' which you will have seen is not the words that the statute require. The complete opposite, in fact.

I've since found photos of that car park from 2016 and the signs do state the contract is with vehicle control services. But the logos are still excel. Im now not sure whether to add that to my defence.

Yes we know, but clearly it MUST be in your defence, you'll have seen all the cases where VCS have discontinued when sussed!

There have been times when it said 'Excel' and the PDT machine tickets come out effectively saying the contract is with Excel. The Parking Prankster blogs, and some cases where VCS have fielded duff evidence pics more than once, have shown EXCEL on the signs.

Yet the usual VCS Witness Statement pretends to rely upon a 2010 contract with Excel, the leaseholder, giving VCS authority, which VCS pretend has lasted the whole time. We know it hasn't and Defendants should seek out and use other photos to prove it said EXCEL and put VCS on the spot.

Defences about this place can be found by searching the forum for the name Zozulya.

JanerRXC

Claim number *****

Between vehicle control services

And

*****

Defence

The defendant denies that the claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.


The facts are that the vehicle, registration *****, of which the defendant is the registered keeper was not the driver at the time in question and Vehicle Control Services (VCS) have not complied with the protection of freedoms act (PoFA) schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the registered keeper (the defendant). There is no reasonable presumption in law that the keeper of a vehicle is the driver.


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 registered keeper not purchasing the appropriate parking time.


Vehicle control services are not the lawful claimant, as all logos on the signs state excel parking, any contract made would have been with excel, therefore no claim can be made from VCS. 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 C8DP9D8



The particulars of claim state that ‘at all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver’. These assertations 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 civil practice direction 16, paras 7.3 to 7.5. further the particulars of claim do not meet the requirement of practice direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.


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.


It is denied that the claimants signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.


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 unable to do so easily. It is therefore denied that the claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.


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 land owner to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation


The protection of freedoms act 2012, schedule 4, at section 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 reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days, the claim includes £60 for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be a double recovery.


In summary it is the defendant’s position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

New defence. Is this better? Thanks