Received County Court Business Centre Claim

Not_so_old_oldie

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. 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.

6. 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.

7. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that at the time of the alleged offence (xxxx xx 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

Not_so_old_oldie

Having added point 5 around the proof of propriety interest, the bit that gets me is the "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."
What evidence is required to determine "that the business in fact supports the defendent"?

Not_so_old_oldie

Defence submitted. Direction questionnaire sent to me immediately according to MCOL. Can't actually find it though so don't know when I need to submit DQ. Where do I find it in MCOL?

KeithP

It will be delivered to you by Royal Mail.

Not_so_old_oldie

DQ received. I have until 5th Sept to respond.
Will fill out as per https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

Do I have to send a copy to the claimant?

Le_Kirk

It doesn't say anything on the DQ but advice from our NEWBIE section is THIS.

nosferatu1001

The DQ is very explicit on this, if read carefully

Yes you serve on the C
In general you are now serving all docuemtns on BOTH the C and the Court.

Le_Kirk

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

The DQ is very explicit on this, if read carefully

Been through it several times now (N180) and cannot for the life of me find where it says to return to claimant, just court. For my own education and so I can advise posters better in future, can you point me in the right direction please?

Not_so_old_oldie

On the DQ it doesn't state to pass a copy to Claimant. It states "once you have completed this form please return it to the address shown on the form N149A, notice of proposed allocation to Small Claims Track".
On the attached front cover sheet (separate page stapled to the DQ) it states "TAKE NOTICE THAT. 1. This is now a defended claim...2. It appears that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track... 3. You must by 5th Sept 2019 complete the Small Claims Direction questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office and serve copies on all other parties"

The N180 form DOES NOT STATE that you need to serve copies on claimant.

Not_so_old_oldie

So the cover sheet (N149A Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track) says to send to the claimant, but the N180 (DQ) form doesn't.

Which is why I was confused.