VCS Doncaster Sheffield Airport

steviemacuk

Hi all, I'm after some advice from you wise people if you'd be so kind.

On 1st March 2019, the driver stopped for a minute or two on an approach road to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. A week later the keeper received a PCN from VCS, which was replied to by the keeper who completed a form on the myparkingcharge.co.uk website, and didn't give any details of who was driving the vehicle.

Various letters have been received from them over the past few months and today a Claim Form from Northampton County Court. The total they are claiming is now £185 (£100 original charge, plus £60 additional charge, plus £25 court costs).

Completed the Acknowledgement of Service on the Moneyclaim website, which, if I have understood correctly, gives me 28 days to reply with my defence - the claim was issued on 19th July 2019.

The 'Particulars of Claim' on the court issued form read as follows: 'The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendant's vehicle, xxxxxxx, was identified in the Robin Hood Doncaster Airport on 01/03/2019 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.'

The signs on the approach roads to Doncaster Sheffield Airport can best be described as small and I would reasonably argue that in order to read all the text on the signs, you'd have to stop your vehicle to do so. Also, the mobile ANPR van that got my vehicle was stopped in the area - can that be used as a reason for defence?

tboo

I hope you put nothing in the box when you completed the AOS - not even a full stop etc


KeithP will confirm your dates for defence submission


and


Is your user name your real name
if so you will need to ask a moderator to change it

Redx

Edit your post and remove any idea of who was driving

The Driver stopped, nothing more to be said

The paperwork came to the Keeper, the only other name to be mentioned

Any defence is about jurisdiction, keeper liability and other legal factors, so read up on the other similar VCS cases on here and follow the same advice as those

The_Deep

'The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

If the land is covered by bye-laws they will struggle. Read other bye laws tickets claims at airports and railway stations, and complain to your MP.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

Maybe better as: -

On 1st March 2019, the driver stopped for a minute or two on an approach road to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. A week later the keeper received a PCN from VCS, which was replied to by the keeper who completed a form on the myparkingcharge.co.uk website, and didn't give any details of who was driving the vehicle.

Redx

read this , its useful


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5967438/claim-form-for-parking-at-doncaster-airport&page=1

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 21st August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's 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.
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.

CathyCats

I have had a very similar experience back in 2015. My case is going to small claims court soon hopefully. I’m going all the way as I feel that it’s unreasonable.

Coupon-mad

Redx wrote: »

read this , its useful

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5967438/claim-form-for-parking-at-doncaster-airport&page=1

Yep then read it again, as you need to beat VCS v Ward, an appeal case, so that can be hard to achieve unless you throw OTHER appeal cases at it.

I hope you only stopped for an emergency, or you might be stuffed IMHO. You need to understand why we are warning you that you need to know about this.

Your case (later, nearer the hearing date) needs you to use the same sort of WS & evidence as that poster, and to read this one again as a cautionary tale:

Redx wrote: »

take note of this thread which lost in court and try to ensure that yours is more robust and can counter the issues they lost on

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5895424/robin-hood-airport-doncaster

Also, the mobile ANPR van that got my vehicle was stopped in the area - can that be used as a reason for defence?

No chance, they can do what they want.

You need to read the links and really get underneath the issues.

Why did your car stop in that no stopping zone?

NO-ONE should stop there. Notorious place for scam PCNs.

steviemacuk

Right then, this is my Defence as it stands at the moment. Do I need to make any changes/additions before sending it off?

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

1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions 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 with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.
2. The driver has not been identified on any occasion and there is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver. The keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm which was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of PoFA 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charges.
4. On all correspondence from the Claimant, it states that the contravention occurred at Robin Hood Airport, Doncaster. The airport rebranded itself to Doncaster Sheffield Airport in December 2016, with the Robin Hood title now a lesser used graphic appendix on only the airport logo. There is no such airport as Robin Hood Airport.
5. 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.
6. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
7. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle stopping or parking at the location in question.
8. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
9. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
10. There are various signs present along the roads around Doncaster Sheffield Airport, but none of them have any means of illumination and therefore cannot be easily read by the driver of a passing vehicle, driving at the speed limit of 30mph, during hours of darkness, as it was when the alleged breach of contract occured. Therefore, the driver is deemed to have agreed to the terms and conditions by having entered the area without knowing what those terms and conditions are. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.
11. 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. The claim includes an additional £60 plus interest, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
12. 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.

Coupon-mad

I am not seeing anything there about countering VCS v Ward with the other appeal cases (Ransomes and Jopson).

That's why we gave you the links. We wanted you to understand and I said:

you need to beat VCS v Ward, an appeal case, so that can be hard to achieve unless you throw OTHER appeal cases at it.

You will LOSE if you file a generic defence like that and do not deal with the stopping issue and why the car stopped (hopefully an emergency but you didn't answer?) and why this is allowed under the byelaws, etc.