Claim Form received, help please

Partypeople

Hi people,
I really hope you can help, I have looked at the forum and followed some of the advise prior.

I have now received a court claim form and beginning to feel nervous, advise would be great.


So the basics are that I was working for a company on the bar at an event. The information sent stated that there was no parking on site, so staff could park free of charge and the venue next door (also owned by the same landowner) in the staff area, this was conditional on providing registration details in advance. This was the only stipulation given to me.



I was working the day prior to the event on setup as well as the event day. I had sent my registration details in advance as required.

On arriving on the day of setup I entered the car park and went to speak with a member of the Box Office staff to inform of my arrival and the instructions received and clarify where I was to park, I was advised of the location of the staff car parking area and proceeded to park.


I then walked to the sister site and reported for work. I was informed that as the site was not yet open to the public that if I wanted I could park closer to my work location. A colleague then drove me back to my vehicle where we observed a van make a hasty exit form the car park and found a red notice attached with a reference to myparkingcharge.

I proceeded to move my vehicle to where I was working, all of this took approximately 15-20minutes.


2 Days later I tried to locate this notice on the myparkingcharge site to receive a notice stating "We cannot find this ticket"


So about a week later I got the PCN through the post and appealed giving the information regarding having permission, quite swiftly I received a response requesting proof that I had been given written permission, this was followed by them requesting proof that I had sent my reg details prior as specified, which I sent. I then did not get an appeal response for approximately 5 months which then said they had rejected the appeal. IN between thyue did send a generic, its taking longer than 28 days and we will be in touch again within another 28 days, but this went on for several months with no other information. Also these emails came from Excel not VCS who the original ticket was from.



I sent a complaint to the company including the issue about the delay in response, lack of signage and raised that the appeal email was not encrypted or secure and this was a breach of GDPR and requested a SAR, I specified that a response was required within 28 days otherwise it was assumed the matter of the PCN was deemed resolved.



I received no reply until the Letter before Action about 5 months after this, I responded, including a copy ofg the previous complaint and a list of information required should they continue to persue, this included another SAR request. Again after over 1 month I received no response.


A few days ago the court claim form arrived, your advise on defending this would be great. I can give further details and clarify any points that are not clear.


Sorry for the rambling but this is the first time I have had anything like this happen to me, Ive never had a parking ticket or any endorsements on my licence.


Thanks in advance
You guys are awesome.

Redx

post the ISSUE date from the top right of the claim form


post the full POC minus any personal info


post the costs breakdown and total being claimed


email a SAR to the DPO at VCS immediately to get all docs , pics and data on you and your vehicle, attaching a copy of the claim form as proof of ID under GDPR


A SAR is 30 days for the deadline , not 28

Partypeople

Issue Date is 17 July 2019


POC - The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendants vehicle was identified in ...... on the 3/8/18 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit.
At all material times the defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and coditions were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.
The sign was the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the T&C and the consewunce of failure to comply, namely a paring charge notice will be issued, and the dedfendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability.
The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.


amount claimed £160. Court fee £25 Total cost £185.00


I would argue also that there is not a notice at the entrance, I will be revisiting the site at the weekend to take further photos of this

KeithP

Partypeople wrote: »

Issue Date is 17 July 2019

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, you have until Monday 5th August to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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.

Egbert_Nobacon

You state the PCN was from VCS, have they also made the court claim ?

Whose name is on the signs VCS or Excel ?

We have seen cases of VCS trying to claim on Excel signs.

With regards to the £60 fake add on search the forum for ABUSE OF PROCESS - this must be added to any defence.

The_Deep

If things are as you say they will struggle in court.

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.

Partypeople

Egbert_Nobacon wrote: »

You state the PCN was from VCS, have they also made the court claim ?

Whose name is on the signs VCS or Excel ?

We have seen cases of VCS trying to claim on Excel signs.

With regards to the £60 fake add on search the forum for ABUSE OF PROCESS - this must be added to any defence.

Thanks,
all paperwork and signage is in the name of VCS yet email responses relating to appeal have Excel Parking Sevice Limited in the sender information

The_Deep

That can be used to your advantage if this does get to court.

Partypeople

HI thanks for the support so far, so am I right in thinking I need to submit my defence then once I get the court date submit witness statenments and evidnce at a later date?


If you could please review my defence draft below before I submit it that would be awesome :beer:

• The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
  
  I argue that I was granted permission in writing and verbally by a staff member of the landowner therefore no contract assumed or implied was entered into by understanding or agreement. Information sent provided to me prior stated that there was no parking on the direct work site, so staff could park free of charge at the Fly DSA Arena (also owned by the same landowner) in the staff area, this was conditional on providing registration details in advance. This was the only stipulation given to me, there was no physical permits allocated on this date or the date following which the vehicle was also parked on the site without a PCN issued. All actions stated in communications by my employer working in connection with the landowner in addition to instructions given verbally by a member of staff/representative of the landowner were followed by the defendant and evidenced sent to the claimant meaning all other conditions were superseded at that time. It is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
• Under the Equality Act 2010 it is the claimants duty to make “reasonable adjustments” to assist disabled people to use any services they provide, I have provided details of my disabilities in correspondence which include Dyslexia and Irlen’s Syndrome, the symptoms of which impede my ability to read text that are in small in size, bold text format and which use highly contracting colours. The claimant has not responded this nor made any reasonable adjustments throughout this process.

• The claimant states that the terms and conditions are clearly displayed at the entrance to the site, this is denied as there is no signage indicating any parking restrictions or payment required for parking other than on an event day, see photo displaying empty sections to signage. This is confusing and mislead and therefore any penalty notice charges are illegal and non enforceable
• In correspondence the claimant states there is clear signage at the entrance and throughout yet there is no signage specifying this is a pay and display area at the entrance or throughout the car park, see photos. It is denied that the Claimant's is capable of creating a legally binding contract at all as drivers are unable to be aware of or agree to any potential contract before entering, whilst driving through or parking at this. It is a condition of the claimants membership with the International Parking Community via the Code of Practice that entrance Signs should: a) Make it clear that the motorist is entering onto private land b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions yet none of the above signage is present at this site.
• The signage present within the parking area is not easily visible by a driver as it is positioned on the left side as a vehicle travels through the car park, and it can therefore not be read by the driver of a vehicle, and not every vehicle will have a passenger able to read the sign as the vehicle enters the land. A passenger in a vehicle cannot agree to a contract on behalf of the driver.
  
  Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. Additionally the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle , in a font which is too small to be read from any reasonable distance, such that it cannot be read from within a parked vehicle. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
• 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, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
• The claimants photo states that the terms and conditions are a valid permit should be visible, Upon revisiting the site I have observed a pay and display machine yet the signage makes no mention, nor directions of any possible location of a payment machine.
• Signage at the pay and display machine states that a driver has 10 minutes to display a ticket. In this instance predatory tactics were used and I believe the 10 minutes period had not lapsed before the commencement of attendants placing a note on my car windscreen. Additionally the signage states that a vehicle can park up to 1hr free of charge, as the vehicle was parked for less than half this allowed period, The defendant argues no loss to landowner, due to large area of car park and short duration based within the site I was not preventing others parking whether paid or free of charge.
• The defendant believes there has been an ABUSE OF PROCESS by the claimant. 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. 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.
• 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.

• I would like to invite the judge to read the case 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: the Judge said 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...'
• 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.
• The defendant states there is confusing over party involved in alleged breach, email correspondence regarding initial appeal came from sender “Excel parking services” a different claimant to “Vehicle Control Services”, In addition Excel are members of BPA whilst Vehicle Control Services are members of IPCC both of which have differing complaints and appeal procedures. This leads to a clash of interest and confusion to users of the site therefore it is agued that it is not possible to enter into a binding contract as a driver is not able to make a sound decision with full clear knowledge of the terms and conditions of which they would become bound.
• The claimant has not followed their terms and conditions within their appeals process as the outcome of the initial appeal was considerably out of agreed timescales without any reason given.

• 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.
  
  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.
• 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.

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Coupon-mad

am I right in thinking I need to submit my defence then once I get the court date submit witness statements and evidnce at a later date?

Yes, but if unsure, you really need to re-read the part of the NEWBIES thread post #2 that has a red heading 'IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

The defence is not meant to be written like this in the first person:

I argue that I was granted..

...Information sent provided to me...

...I would like to invite the judge...

And check your facts, as this is wrong:

In addition Excel are members of BPA

KeithP

Partypeople wrote: »

HI thanks for the support so far, so am I right in thinking I need to submit my defence then once I get the court date submit witness statenments and evidnce at a later date?

Yes, that's right - as explained in post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.