A PCN at claim stage with a Contract Hire Vehicle advice sought/few Q's

SophS

Umkomaas wrote: »

... just copy the one or two pages containing the relevant paragraphs.

Honestly ive read and re-read the transcript till 5am and my eyes started crossing over...still cant find that specific quote so I think ill either omit the evidence of it in appendix or include the whole transcript.

Umkomaas

SophS wrote: »

Honestly ive read and re-read the transcript till 5am and my eyes started crossing over...still cant find that specific quote so I think ill either omit the evidence of it in appendix or include the whole transcript.

Don't leave it out, but copying out the entire transcript (280+ pages from memory) up to 5 times is madness. It's likely the Judge will know it in general terms. But whatever you put forward, you will need to understand it and, if called upon, talk through the implications in the context of your case.

If you go to beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread and read post #14 from Coupon-mad, the relevant Beavis paras are included there. That should point you to the right pages to copy.

SophS

Witness Statement in full, thank you for everyones tips and pointers

Pars 12,13,14. I've changed it from the draft above to argue liability of charges lay with my Contract hire co. I do feel im throwing them under the bus by passing liability of charges to them and hope VCS don't then decide to go after them and in turn they charge me.

Pars 19-23 Abuse of process / inflated charges as per everyones advice.

Par 24 Ive added my schedule of costs using a template I found and listed it as an exhibit.
Is this the correct way to do it? I can post the actual schedule here for critique. I read that courts dont usually award over a certain amount anyway is it £95? so it may be a waste of time.


IN THE COUNTY COURT - Claim No: X

Between

Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)

-and-

X (Defendant)

_____________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT
_____________________________________


I X of X am the defendant in this case.

1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

2. I assert I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.

3. Whilst I am the hirer of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver and, as this event has been resurrected from almost a year, it is impossible to expect the Defendant to recall who might have been driving the vehicle at the material time.

4. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the alleged contravention and subsequent visits to the site were made on foot to carry out research. The Defendant therefore puts Vehicle Control Services (VCS) to strict proof that any contract exists between the Claimant and the Defendant.

5. Due to the sparseness of evidence pertaining to this alleged contravention and of the particulars, a Service Access Request (SAR) was made to the claimants Data Protection Officer via the Claimants stated contact email address on the X of August 2019 for all information pertaining to this matter (Exhibit 1).

6. The Claimant failed to comply within the statutory time limit for responding to the SAR and has in-fact completely ignored it.

7. Failure of the Claimant to comply with the SAR can only be seen as an attempt by the Claimant to disadvantage the Defendant by denying them full disclosure of the information they held.

8. Furthermore, the Claimant has provided zero evidence that a parking contravention ever occurred. Pictures of the vehicle as seen in Exhibit 2 on the Notice to Keeper and subsequent harassment letters are of poor quality and show nothing but the vehicle registration number.

9. No Evidence of the vehicle occupying a prohibited parking space have been provided to the Defendant and Vehicle Control Services are required to show evidence of the contrary.

10. Parking signage in this area is also are non existent or woefully inadequate. If indeed there were signs in this residential area, they were not clear, prominent or legible from all parking areas of both visitor and residents alike.

11. As the Claimant also failed to prove that the hirer of the vehicle was the driver at the material time, they are limited to pursuing the Defendant under the provisions set out by statue in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) below and as set out in the defence statement paragraphs 7 & 8.

12. None of the documents set out in paragraph 13: 2 (a) (b) or (c) of POFA 2012 were ever provided to the Claimant by the vehicle hire firm XX Automotive - who are also the registered keepers of the vehicle (Exhibit 3).

13. Had the Claimant indeed received the above mentioned documents, the Claimant was required to send a copy of those documents to the Defendant within 21 days after receiving them as set out in paragraph 14 (2) and (3) of POFA 2012 of the above exhibit. Again, the Claimant failed to do this.

14. As XX Automotive failed to provide the Claimant, VCS, with copies of the documentation as set out Par 13 of POFA above, they failed to discharge any liability they had as keeper of the vehicle under POFA and as such, XX Automotive are the party liable under the provisions set out for any charges brought by the Claimant.

15. The Defendant rejects any attempt by the Claimant to transfer liability of alleged charges to the hirer of the vehicle and the Defendant refers the court back to paragraph 4 above.

16. At no point has the Claimant proved they had the authority to operate or manage parking at the residential site listed in the Particulars of Claim. It is therefore rejected that VCS has the authority from the landowner sufficient to establish them as the “creditor” within the meaning of the Schedule 4: 2(1) (b) of POFA (2012), nor establish them as a person who is able to recover parking charges, as laid out by the Claimants Trade Association Code of Practice 7.2 & 7.3. (Exhibit 4 & 5)

17. In light of there being no valid contract or agreement between VCS and the Landowners (argued in paragraph 17 of my defence), the Defendant asks the court to dismiss this case as having no rights to bring the action regarding this claim.

18. The Defendant also rejects the artificially inflated charges £185 listed in the Particulars of Claim as Abuse of Process argued in paragraph 21 to 24 of the defence statement.

19.The Claimant has grossly inflated the claim with substantial additional costs to this charge that the defendant believes have not been incurred and with no explanation as to why a charge that started out at £60 ended up at over 3 times that amount. These additional costs were vaguely referred to as “debt collection costs”.

20. The Defendant believes these additional costs are disproportionate, have not been incurred and are in breach of CPR44.3 (2) which states only amounts that are reasonable and proportionate will be allowed. (Exhibit 6)

21. They amount to double recovery and are nothing more than a blatant attempt to bypass the limits put on these charges by both Schedule 4: (5) of POFA (2012) and the Supreme Court ParkingEye vs Beavis rulings which held the sum on the Notice to Keeper amounted to the “full business cost” including any administration and recovery costs and that any further addition would amount to a penalty rendering the contract void. (Exhibit 7 & 8)

22. Nor can these additional costs be described as “contractual costs” as they fail the test of fairness of Consumers Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 (Grey List) paragraphs 6, 10 and 14 as the additional cost was not quantified on the contract (the signage) as such are a hidden penalty, nor were they contractually agreed as they offered the defendant nothing of value (consideration) in return for paying this additional sum. (Exhibit 9)

23. The Defendant believes that these addition costs are nothing more than a crude attempt at double recovery to inflate the charge with sums they are not lawfully entitled to and an abuse of process.

24. 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. (Exhibit 10)

25. In light of the reasons above, the Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike out this excessive claim with immediate effect.

I believe the facts stated in this Statement are true.

Name: x


Signed……………………………….


Date

Coupon-mad

SophS wrote: »

Honestly ive read and re-read the transcript till 5am and my eyes started crossing over.

Why? I never expect anyone to read the entire transcript of Beavis.

In CEC16's thread and in post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread, I spell out the paragraphs to quote a line from each, and I say which paragraphs they are...

It will be less than half a page of A4 and is merely showing the Judge that three times, the Supreme court repeated that a parking charge MUST include the costs...

SophS

Ah, because I was looking for the paragraph that the above quote was taken from verbatim, I did read your post 14 beamerguys thread, I even saved the entire thing just in case and yes although paragraphs referred to excessive charges etc I thought I was required to reference the exact par with my quoted par...which then lead me to scanning the transcripts .
I obviously dont know much about court and paper work procedures or how exact one needs to be so if I knew I could use those Beavis pars in your post 14 as exhibit evidence to what I wrote in my WS I wouldn't have bothered trying to read the entire transcript.

Coupon-mad

Yep, use the little snippets on a sheet of A4. It's case law that the Judge can check if they want.

SophS

https://images2.imgbox.com/9f/cf/GxGtJX4L_o.jpg

Can anyone please verify that the contract in the attached picture link has expired rendering it null and void - so for the purpose of VCS having the authority to establish themselves as the creditor and bring charges...they can't?

I have circled the point in question in red.

this came as part of VCS WS today which is the deadline so ive already handed in my WS yesterday

KeithP

Have a look at paragraph 6.5 on that document.

nosferatu1001

Just give the dates, rather than have us click through - im blocked from seeing it, for example.

SophS

Have a look at paragraph 6.5 on that document.

Aww I thought it expired :-(

Nosferatu1001 it said VCS will provide a parking control service at the car park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 1st day of May 2012 upon terms and conditions here in....

So I thought it expired in 2015.