We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Draft defence VCS
Dooferdog
Posts: 8 Forumite
Hi folks
In receipt of 2 separate Claim Forms. I have done as much research as possible and now posting draft defence and would be grateful for feedback before I send them in. AoS submitted to defend I have ignored all previous correspondence from VCS.
I have a few questions also please. And draft defence below:
1) I have received two Claims as the car was pictured 24 hours apart at the same location. Do VCS have to seek a claim for all debts together or are two separate claims allowed? I think read somewhere that they cannot make two separate claims.There is no evidence the car moved. Currently I have not made reference to this in the defence but I believe there may be a case to first seek to have the claim consolidated into one, but I can't find the relevant info on this.
2) Can the same claim be resubmitted by the Claimant to correct errors in the Particulars highlighted by my Defence?
3) Can a subsequent, separate claim be made by the Claimant if they lose an original claim because of errors in the Particulars highlighted by my Defence?
3) Should I submit the shorter defence which seeks to identify the nonsense of the claim and that everything else is irrelevant, or should I submit a longer defence making points about the absence and quality of signage even though this references a place not properly identified in the Claim.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are as below:
2.1. This Claim is an Abuse of Process and the Claim should be struck out as the costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous
2.1.1. 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.
2.2. 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 debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
2.3. 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.
2.4. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. 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.
2.5. 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.
2.6. 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.
2.7. 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 DJ 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:
''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...''
2.8. 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 indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
2.9. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
2.10. 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 fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
3. Nonsense of claim and no contract
3.1. The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land, yet specific private land has not been identified in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). The Particulars of claim states that "The Defendent's vehicle was identified in the NN-NN Acacia Street". This does not identify specifically where this alleged breach of contract has been entered into as it is not a specific place; it makes no sense and therefore the claim is nonsense and void, and any existence of a contract is denied.
3.2. The vehicle, registration XXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to have been photographed in a place unidentifiable as any specific land stated in the Particular's of Claim for which the Claimant is claiming breach of contract. As such the basis of this claim is nonsense and void and any existence of a contract is denied.
4. Even if the Claimant's Claim for a breach of contract were deemed pursuable against the facts highlighted in 2 and 3 above, there is no evidence to prove that any contract, or any contractual terms and conditions were entered into by the Defendant with the Claimant.
4.1. The photographic evidence as provided by VCS shows no sufficiently well placed signage, nor sufficiently lit signage, nor any signage with sufficiently large font, to show that it relates to any land or parking space allegedly parked on by the Defendent's vehicle, and therefore no contract or any contractual terms and conditions have been entered into. ie.
a) There is no evidence showing the Defendent's car parked in a specific area covered by any clear sign detailing parking terms and conditions for the specific area where the vehicle is allegedly parked. Image 2 and Image 3 from the MyParkingCharge case link show no clear sign covering the specific place where the car is apparently parked.
b) The photographic evidence (image 2 from the MyParkingCharge case link) shows an unidentified car (as the number plate is over exposed) and a poorly lit sign apparently in another place captured by the camera, which does not prove that the sign relates to the place at which the car appears to be parked. This actually shows:
1) No proof of the identifiable Defendent's car parked on specific land covered by a contract with the Claimant (due to the illegibility of the number plate in the image), and
2) that the apparent sign in the image is both insufficiently placed and insufficiently lit to prove that the sign relates to the place the photographed car is positioned and exposes the keeper to a contract with the Claimant. The over exposure of the car number plate appears to indicate an attempt to brighten the area where the unreadable sign may be placed as seen in the picture proving that the sign is extremely poorly lit.
c) Image 6 from the MyParkingCharge case link shows a sign, despite being zoomed in and blown up, with text in the bottom half which cannot be read because the font is so small, and which would be illegible in the insufficiently lit conditions shown in image 2 and to any passing vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
d) At parking spaces on Acacia Street, Nottingham a place similar to a place mis-stated in the PoC, there appear to be various tenants and various parking notices so it is not clear which land the VCS notice photographed in image 6 would relate to. There is no photographic evidence or otherwise of any notice relating to specific land on which the Defendent's car is allegedly parked.
e) There is no evidence of a sign where the vehicle is allegedly parked, detailing parking terms and conditions for a specific area identified on that sign. ie. the sign shown in image 6 from the MyParkingCharge case link says "by entering this private land you are entering into a contract...." . It does not detail an address, location or parking space numbers to specify which private land the sign relates to.
4.2. The PoC states "the terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance.." There is no evidence presented that this is the case, and can be no evidence as it is not the case.
4.3. Assuming that Image 2 from the MyParkingCharge case link showed a legible sign which related to the place where the car is allegedly parked, which it does not as shown in 2.2 above, it appears to suggest via this icon that "ANPR may operate". Prior to receipt of correspondence from the Claimant the Defendant was not aware of what ANPR is and would have no reason to know as it is not something defined or even mentioned in the highway code. Therefore by using obscure abbreviations and terminology the sign is obfuscating any message the Claimaint may be attempting to convey, and it cannot therefore be accepted that a contract has been formed.
5. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.1. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
6. 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 to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
7. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
8. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
9. The POFA, 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
10. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true
Name
Signature
Date
In receipt of 2 separate Claim Forms. I have done as much research as possible and now posting draft defence and would be grateful for feedback before I send them in. AoS submitted to defend I have ignored all previous correspondence from VCS.
I have a few questions also please. And draft defence below:
1) I have received two Claims as the car was pictured 24 hours apart at the same location. Do VCS have to seek a claim for all debts together or are two separate claims allowed? I think read somewhere that they cannot make two separate claims.There is no evidence the car moved. Currently I have not made reference to this in the defence but I believe there may be a case to first seek to have the claim consolidated into one, but I can't find the relevant info on this.
2) Can the same claim be resubmitted by the Claimant to correct errors in the Particulars highlighted by my Defence?
3) Can a subsequent, separate claim be made by the Claimant if they lose an original claim because of errors in the Particulars highlighted by my Defence?
3) Should I submit the shorter defence which seeks to identify the nonsense of the claim and that everything else is irrelevant, or should I submit a longer defence making points about the absence and quality of signage even though this references a place not properly identified in the Claim.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: XXXXXXXXX
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)
-and-
XXXXXXXXXXX (Defendant)
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are as below:
2.1. This Claim is an Abuse of Process and the Claim should be struck out as the costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous
2.1.1. 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.
2.2. 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 debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
2.3. 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.
2.4. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. 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.
2.5. 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.
2.6. 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.
2.7. 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 DJ 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:
''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...''
2.8. 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 indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.
2.9. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.
2.10. 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 fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.
3. Nonsense of claim and no contract
3.1. The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land, yet specific private land has not been identified in the Particulars of Claim (PoC). The Particulars of claim states that "The Defendent's vehicle was identified in the NN-NN Acacia Street". This does not identify specifically where this alleged breach of contract has been entered into as it is not a specific place; it makes no sense and therefore the claim is nonsense and void, and any existence of a contract is denied.
3.2. The vehicle, registration XXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to have been photographed in a place unidentifiable as any specific land stated in the Particular's of Claim for which the Claimant is claiming breach of contract. As such the basis of this claim is nonsense and void and any existence of a contract is denied.
4. Even if the Claimant's Claim for a breach of contract were deemed pursuable against the facts highlighted in 2 and 3 above, there is no evidence to prove that any contract, or any contractual terms and conditions were entered into by the Defendant with the Claimant.
4.1. The photographic evidence as provided by VCS shows no sufficiently well placed signage, nor sufficiently lit signage, nor any signage with sufficiently large font, to show that it relates to any land or parking space allegedly parked on by the Defendent's vehicle, and therefore no contract or any contractual terms and conditions have been entered into. ie.
a) There is no evidence showing the Defendent's car parked in a specific area covered by any clear sign detailing parking terms and conditions for the specific area where the vehicle is allegedly parked. Image 2 and Image 3 from the MyParkingCharge case link show no clear sign covering the specific place where the car is apparently parked.
b) The photographic evidence (image 2 from the MyParkingCharge case link) shows an unidentified car (as the number plate is over exposed) and a poorly lit sign apparently in another place captured by the camera, which does not prove that the sign relates to the place at which the car appears to be parked. This actually shows:
1) No proof of the identifiable Defendent's car parked on specific land covered by a contract with the Claimant (due to the illegibility of the number plate in the image), and
2) that the apparent sign in the image is both insufficiently placed and insufficiently lit to prove that the sign relates to the place the photographed car is positioned and exposes the keeper to a contract with the Claimant. The over exposure of the car number plate appears to indicate an attempt to brighten the area where the unreadable sign may be placed as seen in the picture proving that the sign is extremely poorly lit.
c) Image 6 from the MyParkingCharge case link shows a sign, despite being zoomed in and blown up, with text in the bottom half which cannot be read because the font is so small, and which would be illegible in the insufficiently lit conditions shown in image 2 and to any passing vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
d) At parking spaces on Acacia Street, Nottingham a place similar to a place mis-stated in the PoC, there appear to be various tenants and various parking notices so it is not clear which land the VCS notice photographed in image 6 would relate to. There is no photographic evidence or otherwise of any notice relating to specific land on which the Defendent's car is allegedly parked.
e) There is no evidence of a sign where the vehicle is allegedly parked, detailing parking terms and conditions for a specific area identified on that sign. ie. the sign shown in image 6 from the MyParkingCharge case link says "by entering this private land you are entering into a contract...." . It does not detail an address, location or parking space numbers to specify which private land the sign relates to.
4.2. The PoC states "the terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance.." There is no evidence presented that this is the case, and can be no evidence as it is not the case.
4.3. Assuming that Image 2 from the MyParkingCharge case link showed a legible sign which related to the place where the car is allegedly parked, which it does not as shown in 2.2 above, it appears to suggest via this icon that "ANPR may operate". Prior to receipt of correspondence from the Claimant the Defendant was not aware of what ANPR is and would have no reason to know as it is not something defined or even mentioned in the highway code. Therefore by using obscure abbreviations and terminology the sign is obfuscating any message the Claimaint may be attempting to convey, and it cannot therefore be accepted that a contract has been formed.
5. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
5.1. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
6. 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 to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
7. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
8. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
9. The POFA, 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
10. 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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true
Name
Signature
Date
0
Comments
-
What are the Issue Dates on your Claim Forms?
Did they come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?0 -
Hi Keith.
Issue Dates are both 17th July from CCBC St Katherine's House. Thanks.0 -
You should include the point that there are two claims for essentially the same thing in each Defence - referring to the other claim.Issue Dates are both 17th July from CCBC St Katherine's House.
Both of the covering emails - file each Defence separately - should also mention the other claim and suggest that the claims be consolidated into one. You should continue to mention this at every opportunity and eventually a Judge will notice and correct this abuse of process.
With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.
That's over four 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- 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.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
Thanks for the suggestions. Anyone with any further thoughts on my questions or my draft defence much appreciated too.0
-
Also, is there a process for the Defendent nominating someone else, eg. a spouse, to speak on their behalf in court?0
-
Yes, it's a really simple process.
The 'someone else' turns up at the hearing with the Defendant and informs the usher that he intends to be the Defendants Lay Representative.
The Lay Rep can do most of the talking but the Defendant can be asked direct questions.
The Defendant must attend. The Lay Rep cannot attend without the Defendant.0 -
Search this forum for:I have received two Claims as the car was pictured 24 hours apart at the same location. Do VCS have to seek a claim for all debts together or are two separate claims allowed? I think read somewhere that they cannot make two separate claims.There is no evidence the car moved.
Currently I have not made reference to this in the defence but I believe there may be a case to first seek to have the claim consolidated into one, but I can't find the relevant info on this.
Two claims? abuse of process
or
two claims consolidated defence
...and change the search to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS.
you will find the vital words to add (AND REPEAT AT EVERY STAGE!) in one of your results.
A Judge will likely consolidate the claims nearer the hearing stage time, but ONLY if you repeat the same words in a covering letter at each and every stage, till it's picked up.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Hi All
NPASCT x2 received. Is there any update anyone is aware of on further claims getting kicked out for the disproportionate and disingenuous costs argument? (as highlighted in my defence claim above?)
2.7. 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 DJ 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:
''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...''0 -
What's a NPASCT?0
-
So this one rolls on. Court date set for late Jan. Somehow with Christmas and everything I have missed the deadline for submitting witness statements. I had in my mind it was 14 days pre court date, but turns out it is 28 days (now past) .. That said I have not received any witness statement from the claimant. I presume they should have to submit one and send me a copy?
The Notice of Trial Date states that the claimant must pay the trial fee by 30th December. At this stage I would like to know whether they have paid or not but I cannot get through to the court on the phone.
Should I get on and submit WS anyway?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards