VCS County Court Cases

CathyCats

3. 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 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.

4. According to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order for a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to be enforceable it should be received within 14 days of the alleged contravention (denied). As you can see by the attached PCN the date of the alleged contravention (denied) was 09/07/2015 and the issue date of the PCN is 21/07/2015. For the PCN to be enforceable it should have been received by 22/07/2015. The PCN was not received until 25/07/2015 therefore it cannot be enforced.

CathyCats

5. The PCN was issued following Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage and sent through the post. The Defendant should have been offered 21 days to pay at the reduced rate of £60, however, was only offered 14 days. The British Association actually state in their COP that a PCN sent through the Postal Service should give the same time to the recipient as one issued on a windscreen.

6. The Claimant stated in some of their correspondence that they intend to reply upon ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 should this matter go to Court, however, that case is actually in no way similar in the location, circumstances nor signage.

CathyCats

7. The terms and conditions upon entering this stretch of private land were not clearly displayed at the entrance or at prominent locations throughout the area. The Defendant had pre-booked an overnight stay at the on-site Hotel with on-site parking for the duration of the holiday. The signs for the Hotel and that of the terms and conditions upon entering private land were both displayed on the fence on the roundabout where the Hotel is situated just off the third. Clearly these were not obvious as the Defendant continued straight over at the roundabout, taking the second exit onto the private land where the alleged contravention (denied) occurred. Had the Defendant seen these signs she would have taken the third exit and entered the Hotel grounds and not the second exit onto the private. These signs were only seen once the Defendant had left the area to retrace the journey in the hope of locating the Hotel. The terms and conditions upon entering the private land were only read once the Defendant was parked at the Hotel and taking a walk around the Hotel grounds. As the Defendant did not see the signs and thus the Terms and Conditions she cannot have agreed to be contractually bound by them.

CathyCats

8. The Claimant’s signage was poorly located in such a position that it could be deemed dangerous as drivers unfamiliar with the area would need to take their concentration off the road for a considerable amount of time in order to read it’s terms and conditions. Since the alleged contravention (denied) new signs have been erected. It can be inferred that the previous signage was not comprehensive enough to satisfy any Court.

CathyCats

9. The Defendant did not park or stop their vehicle as suggested by the PCN in which it states “The alleged Contravention was detected and recorded by Mobile Traffic Enforcement Cameras CCTV) at the site on 09/07/2015 and the period of stopping (waiting/parking) resulting in the contravention is identified above “ (denied). The Defendant was neither waiting or parking. The vehicle had stalled due to the slow speed in which it was being driven and the fact that the Defendant was unfamiliar with the vehicle as it had only been purchased two weeks prior to this date. The Defendant ensured that the area was safe before restarting the vehicle and continuing to try to locate the Hotel. (The Defendant’s SATNAV claimed that this was the location). As indicated on the PCN the time elapsed was less than 20 seconds and no one ever entered or left the vehicle.

CathyCats

10. The alleged contravention (denied) did not in any way impede other road users, cause harm or safety issues/concerns to any persons or property, or cost the landholder or anyone else any loss of earnings so this PCN issued for less than 20 seconds is disproportionately excessive and unreasonable.

11. Rossendales Collect and B W Legal have harassed and intimidated the Defendant on numerous occasions with threats to her future creditworthiness and employability.

CathyCats

12. Rossendales Collect also on several occasions threatened to visit the Defendant’s home in order to obtain payment.

13. Following the Defendant corresponding with VCS@bwlegal, B W Legal responded with a letter dated 26 May delivered in an envelope post marked 32-05-16. The letter stated that to prevent further costs (which incidentally the amount kept on changing) being incurred the Defendant should contact them within 7 days of this letter, clearly not allowing the Defendant time to respond in a timely manner. This has been an ongoing issue throughout as proven by the original PCN.

CathyCats

14. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. On three occasions B W Legal mentions the case of ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 stating that they intend to use this case should this matter go to Court. It is suggested that because of their conduct they should not be allowed to pursue future PCNs via Money Claim Online as part of the terms of making a claim is that you cannot threaten people with Court cases to harass others. They have clearly done so in this instance.

CathyCats

15. The Claimant’s behaviour has been intimidating throughout, having a negative impact on the Defendant’s health and well-being. As such the Defendant is keeping a note of wasted time and costs in dealing with this matter, with a view of claiming all expenses for attending any hearing.

CathyCats

16. The Court is invited to strike out the claim, due to no cause of action nor prospects of success.

17. The facts and information in this defence are true and the Defendant is not liable for the sum claimed, nor any sum at all.