Vehcile Control Services - 4 years ago and rcvd County Court Claim

wimblebob

Hi,

I have followed the threads and advice and feel something of a parking expert, except where my own situation occurs.

Facts:

25.8.15 Date of alleged parking infringement
3.7.19 Claim Form Issue Date for County Court Business Centre
5.7.19 Claim Form Received to home address (lived here for 12 months)
8.7.19 Filed AOS asking for 14 extra days
9.7.19 AOS received
9.7.19 Sent SAR to VCS - no response to date
5.8.19 day to file defence

£160 Claimed plus £25 court fee.

Other Information:

I am registered keeper, lived in 3 addresses since 2015, had mail re-directs at each address for 12 months.
Never received any correspondance about a parking fine from Excel or VCS - I have no idea what this is referring to.
Particulars of Claim:
The Claim is for a breach of contract for
breaching the terms and conditions set on
private land. The Defendant's vehicle,
########, was identified in the ######,
######## on the 25/08/2015 in breach of the
advertised terms and conditions; namely
parking without displaying a valid
ticket/permit. At all material times the
Defendant was the registered keeper and/or
driver. The terms and conditions upon
entering private land were clearly displayed
at the entrance and in prominent locations.
The sign was the offer and the act of
entering private land was the acceptance of
the offer hereby entering into a contract by
conduct. The signs specifically detail the
terms and conditions and the consequences of
failure to comply, namely a parking charge
notice will be issued, and the Defendant has
failed to settle the outstanding liability.
The Claimant seeks the recovery of the
parking charge notice, contractual costs and
interest.
--
I have tried to contact VCS over the past few weeks but their phone lines are broken (I have audio recordings of each attempt, automated voice tells you call forwarding is broken).

I have to file my defence shortly, and i am going to be away for two weeks shortly too so i would like to get the defence done as soon as possible, however it feels difficult to defend what you dont really understand. I dont feel i can go after signage or the like, i have no indication as to what the signage was like 4 years ago!

Any advice will be most welcome

W

Redx

just read other recent VCS defences and adapt one


ALWAYS query the signage and landowner authority, plus query the additional spurious charges , and POFA too

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Never, ever ring a parking scammer.

Post your defence here, using the guide to court in post 2 of the NEWBIES as your guide.


See if google streetview or similar from around the date in 2015 shows anything regarding signs. The cars don't normally enter car parks but something might be visible from the road that can be used, especially around the car park entrance.

Read the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy where several cases have been thrown out by judges because of the fake add on £60 charges by the scamlicitors. Contact the court and ask your case to be dismissed for the same reasons, quoting the other cases.

KeithP

wimblebob wrote: »

3.7.19 Claim Form Issue Date for County Court Business Centre
8.7.19 Filed AOS asking for 14 extra days
9.7.19 AOS received
5.8.19 day to file defence

You are correct with your Defence filing date but there might be something useful here...


With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th August 2019 to file your Defence.


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.

wimblebob

I have read as many of the forum posts as I could between having 4 rugrats, a full time job and packing for holiday! Today is the 29th day since the SAR and no response yet.

Here is my draft defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: @@@

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE SOLUTION LIMITED (Claimant)

-and-

@@@ (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant invites the court to strike this claim out as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under Practice Direction 16, set out by the Ministry of Justice and also Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) under 16.4.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, and has been since 2009. The vehicle is insured with two named drivers along several people who use the car. However, the claimant has no cause for action against the Defendant on the following grounds:


a. Under Practice Direction 16, the particulars of claim fails to adhere to 7.1 which states the particulars should include an “identification of the land” on which the offence took place.

b. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under 7.3, the particulars fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”. There is no copy of any PCN, Notice to Keeper or copy of the wording used within any signage employed where the alleged offence occurred. At least one of these would be required for the parking charge to be enforced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. This Subject Access Request was made on the 7th July 2019.

c. In accordance with CPR, the particulars of claim are also in breach of part 16.4. The particulars are extremely sparse; divulge no course of action, nor sufficient detail as to why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The vague particulars of claim disclose no clear course of action.

d. Under Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols 6c, the Claimant has failed to disclose “key documents relevant to the issues in dispute” or followed legislative procedure outlined in the Protections of Freedom Act 2012, Schedule 4.


3. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Protections of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) under Schedule 4. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver and has chosen to pursue the registered keeper. The Defendant refutes that any Notice to Keeper was issued and the Claimant has failed to provide any withstanding evidence that one has been issued.

a. The failure to issue a Notice to Keeper or supply evidence that a Notice to Keeper has been issued within the particulars of claim as per 4.8/4.9 breach PoFA 2012 under Schedule 4.

b. The Claimant has also failed to supply evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued which would result in a breach of Schedule 4, paragraph 7.


4. The Claimant has failed to supply evidence or proof that there is sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring the claim. The proper claimant is the landowner.

a. As a third-party agent, it is the responsibility of the Claimant to provide evidence of their strict legal right to bring a claim either as the landowner or as agent of the landholder. The Claimant has failed to supply any forthcoming evidence that they are the landowner or that they are authorised; “under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land” under PoFA 2012, Schedule 4.2.

b. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis vs ParkingEye (2015) [2015] UKSC 67 case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

5. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. The Claimant has not supplied evidence that a Notice to Driver has been issued and has also not issued a Notice to Keeper. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. The Defendant once again invites the court to strike out the claim as having no prospect of success. Alternatively, the Defendant requests the court to order the Claimant to provide further and better Particulars of Claim.

6. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

7. 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.

8. 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. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

9. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, 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. It is incredibly difficult to now show the signage from 4 years ago, as they have been changed.

10. 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.

11. 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 and/or penalty.

12. 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 Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''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...''

13. 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 4th August 2019

Any help gratefully received as ever!

Le_Kirk

Good to see you have carried out research and found the abuse of process but your point 12 needs modifying to make sure that it is quoting the district judges from the previous cases rather than issuing an instruction or order to the court.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining 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.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6078067/vehicle-control-services-4-year-old-ticket-county-court-claim-withdrawal

Yay, you won! Well done.

ANOTHER VCS ONE BITES THE DUST! :T

1505grandad

VEHICLE SOLUTION LIMITED - is that the name of the claimant on Court docs?

Umkomaas

1505grandad wrote: »

VEHICLE SOLUTION LIMITED - is that the name of the claimant on Court docs?

All done and dusted now. The OP won his case.