VCS County Court Claim

Lego24601

Hi folks,


Have looked at some really welcome advice on here. Right of Access Request raised (acknowledged but no info yet) and AOS done.




parking was in a retail park after dark outside normal hours. it was dark and I honestly never saw a sign - they are badly positioned and unlit. really confused about roles of three parties - Wright Hassall (thought there name was a joke at first), ZZPS and VCS who all seem to be involved. in 2015/16 I had asked WH if it was legitimate to charge after hours - they closed the case and returned it to their Client ZZPS. no further contact until pre-court claim from VCS. I asked WH again and they said it was still closed. Went onto VCS website with reference numbers they gave and claim could not be found so I assumed it was someone chancing it. then court papers! Views very much welcomed on draft defence.

• The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
  
  
• The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.
  
  
• The car park was identified as St Mary’s Gate Retail Park. The Defendant parked after 7pm. Since it was a Sunday, the retail park was closed at that time. The Defendant’s car was the only car in the car park. No other cars were deprived of any ability to park. No customers were impeded from being able to shop and no shops in the retail park had sales affected.
  
• Since the retail park the car park was identified as was closed the Claimant is put to strict proof to confirm that they have sufficient proprietary interest in the land under the correct address, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
  
  
• Parking charges for council parking in Sheffield one hour after the Defendant parked are free. There would therefore be no Parking charge and no penalty.
  
  
• The relevant circumstances of ParkingEye v Beavis are therefore not applicable in this case. Following the same logic as the same court any parking charge must be compared with free parking.
  
  
• Since the Defendant parked after 7pm in November and the retail park was closed, the car park lights were off. There is only one sign on entering the car park. It did not have any illumination of its own and is positioned on the left hand side of the road in a position that would not be illuminated by car headlights, since the approach to the car park is from a left hand bend.
  
  
• Whilst there are other signs within the car park, none of these were visible from where the Defendant parked which was immediately to the right on entering the car park. There are no car park signs in that vicinity of the car park.
  
  
• The car park signs are therefore inadequate when the retail park is closed and the car park is not in normal operation after dark and since the defendant parked to the right on entering the car park, where there are no signs.
  
  
• The claimant is put to proof that the signage was illuminated and visible to anyone at the location at the material time. If they were not then it is argued that it is impossible for a driver to make an informed decision or enter into any contract with VCS Ltd.
  
  
• The roles of the claimant, Wright Hassall Solicitors and ZZPS have not been adequately stated. In 2015 and 2016 Wright Hassall Solicitors identified ZZPS as their client and did so again in 2019. The role of Vehicle Control Services has been stated as “car parking operator”, but not stated for whom they are operating. The land owner has never been identified.
  
  
• None of Wright Hassall, ZZPS or Vehicle Control Services have provided answers to questions put to them by the Defendant in 2016, via Wright Hassall.
  
  
• Wright Hassall stated in 2016 and 2019 that the matter had been closed with them and returned to their client ZZPS.
  
  
• The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.
• 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, as detailed below:
  
  ''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, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success.
  
  
• 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.
  
  I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

KeithP

Hi and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Did the Claim Form come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton, or from somewhere else?

Coupon-mad

I can't see your logic here with these words, albeit I would distinguish signs in the dark at a time when no parking licence is on offer, as being very different in facts from Beavis:

The relevant circumstances of ParkingEye v Beavis are therefore not applicable in this case. Following the same logic as the same court any parking charge must be compared with free parking.

Why does ANYONE drive into a retail park when the shops are closed? Clearly the car park is not a free-for-all 'come & park here while you go off somewhere else all evening' piece of land. The driver could and should have parked on street at night.

Just saying that (unless there was a good reason to park there I had not thought of, to do with the rights of the onsite retailers, like deliveries) this looks bad and selfish parking on private land - as I am afraid this looks - is one of the reasons why scumbag PPCs exist.

Anyway what's the date on the N1 claim top right, and what do the particulars say?

And did this claim go to your old address too (you will have to put this right by telling the courts and the Claimant your real address for service, to avoid all the comms going astray for months).

Lego24601

Hi many thanks for replies.


Claim form was issued 1st July.


Claim went to my new address. I don't know if it went to my old address too.


The claim form did come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton


re Beavis comparison. I understood when determining that the charge in Beavis was an appropriate level the supreme court considered equivalent penalties in the area. Had I parked on street (if I had gone to the Venue and driven around to find a space) such parking would have been free and no fine or charge issued, so that should be the relevant comparison.


Re parking in the retail park. It was on my way to an event where I thought parking may be busy - I went past the car park, saw it was empty and in walking distance of the event.


Cheers

KeithP

Lego24601 wrote: »

Claim form was issued 1st July.

The claim form did come from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st July, you had until Monday 22nd July - last Monday - to do the Acknowledgement of Service.

I am going to assume you did the AoS before then. Please confirm.


Having done the AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a 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.

Lego24601

Hi Yes AoS done.

KeithP

Lego24601 wrote: »

Hi Yes AoS done.

Yes, I read that in your opening post.

That wasn't what I asked you to confirm.

The_Deep

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.

Lego24601

Thanks KeithP - that was answer to a different question, date was posted in other reply as 1st July