Received County Court Business Centre Claim

beamerguy

I've not responded, and therefore now recieved the claim £160 + court fee of £25.
Since I've not offered a defence before am I too late and should pay?
VCS are doing what they always try on ..... a fake scam £60 add-on

ABUSE OF PROCESS AND AN ATTEMPT OF DOUBLE RECOVERY

Read what judges have said about this scam, it applies to every company adding the extra £60 or more

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal&highlight=abuse+of+process

Not_so_old_oldie

It started with a £100 fine for not paying £1 for anything above 60 minutes for which the driver was 11 minutes over, (or £60 for paying in full within 14 days), this got increased to £160 and now £185 with court fee.
As per the Southampton case:
This additional charge is not recoverable under the protection of freedoms act 2012, Schedule 4 not with reference to the judgement in parking eye 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.

Is this worth putting in the defence?

Redx

yes it is


have you done the AOS online yet to get extra time to defend this claim ?


let us see your draft defence

Not_so_old_oldie

I've done the AOS online but not written the defence yet.

Redx

Not_so_old_oldie wrote: »

1) I've done the AOS online



2) but not written the defence yet.

1) good


2) ok , so get on with it and post the draft below for critique


until you do so this wont move forward

Coupon-mad

The PPC is VCS (Vehicle Control Services).Unfortunatley I think the PPC have followed POFS.

If you man the POFA, not they haven't, not on the timeline that you gave us, nor the wording of the 9(2)f warning about the keeper becoming liable.

And if the car was in and out in 11 minutes (is that what you mean?) that can certainly be argued as within a reasonable grace period not to accept the terms, and leave.

Not_so_old_oldie

Not quite. 60 mins is free. Then £1 for the next 60 minutes. The driver was parked for 71 mins - therefore 11 minutes over the free period.

Coupon-mad

But the driver wasn't parked all that time, surely, if this was a postal PCN? All it shows is the time you drove in and out, and grace periods either side of the hour's parked time, easily cover you.

Not_so_old_oldie

My defence for constructive criticism:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services VCS (Claimant)

-and-

Xxxxx xxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

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

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company VCS at xxxxxxx.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the contravention reason was 101) PARKED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF THE PARKING TARIFF FOR THE VERHICLE REGISTRATION MARK OF THE VEHICLE ON THE SITE, The maximum period allowed at this site is 120 minutes. The duration of stay as per the PCN was 71 minutes.
4. As per BCP Code of Practice section 13.2 states: “…you should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they stay or go.”, and BCP Code of Practice section 13.4 states: “You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.” In this instance the driver was inside the ANPR location for 11 minutes outside of the free period (initial 60 minutes), thus within a reasonable grace period.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, 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. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that at the time of the alleged offence (16.50 on 1st Jan 2019) the claimant's signage set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

7. The terms on the Claimant's signage were displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle especially in the dark, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

8. 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. As per claim number F0DP201T District Judge Taylor (Southampton Court, 10th June 2019) the substantial additional charge is an abuse of process.

9. 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

Le_Kirk

You need the standard "landowner authority" point, see below: -

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 in these circumstances, and to pursue payment in the court in their own name. Even if they hold such authority, the Claimant is put to strict proof that this authorisation expressly allows litigation against patrons even when the business in fact supports the Defendant in wanting an unfair charge to be cancelled.

If you have checked out the 17 pre-written defence examples in the NEWBIE thread post # 2, you will see this in nearly every one.