County Court Claim Vehicle Control Services VCS

clarkcj

I lost the n244 application.
Ordered to pay £100 in costs. There wasn't enough to differentiate my case from the high court byelaws case which stated that private parking conditions could be applied despite it being a railway carpark.

clarkcj

Fyi the case in question is 'Jones & Tighilt' v First Greater Western 2013

clarkcj

I'm really annoyed. Feeling like just paying the £160 as well as the £200 to make all this go away!

Coupon-mad

I don't blame you for this. I've read that taxi case before, darn, it is not even similar but no doubt VCS argued it was.

But don't give up on your entire case. That would be letting them win.

Why £160 plus £200?

clarkcj

£160 is the amount claimed,
£100 was the n244 cost
£100 is what I've been ordered to pay in costs for losing the n244 hearing
£360 in total! An expensive lesson!
I'm actually wrong, it's £385 because of the £25 court fee thrown in there too.

Regarding the taxi case, yes they did, the crux of their argument is that the relationship between the railway company and the landowner is identical in both cases and hence the high court ruling takes precedence - the land should be treated as private and hence civil parking cases are valid.

clarkcj

You're right Coupon Mad, I'd be silly not to fight this again, the emotions obviously got the better of me this morning. Now I need to file my defence, it follows:

clarkcj

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date, which the Claimant has stated was 8 months ago, March 2019. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
The location is subject to statutory control and the parking charge is statute barred

2. The facts regarding this location - Sandwell and Dudley Park and Ride car park - is land that is 'under statutory control' and as such, it does not meet the definition of 'relevant land' within the meaning set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA').

3. The current national Railway Byelaws ('RB2005') apply to this land::
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf
The Railway Byelaws are made under section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail Authority and were confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 June 2005.

4. Byelaw 14 provides for and covers traffic signs, causing obstructions and parking on railway land, including public car parks.

5. Therefore the Claimant is in difficulty regarding their claim, due to these facts:
(i) Any parking enforcement remains in the gift of the relevant authority, by laying a case before magistrates under the applicable byelaw 'RB2005' within six months of a parking event. That period has long since expired and is statute barred.
(ii) Notwithstanding the above, parking enforcement at this location falls outside of the jurisdiction of any private parking company using the small claims track. Enacted and current Byelaws cannot be switched 'on or off' at the whim of the authorities, not least because it leaves a consumer confused and with no certainty of terms, even if the Claimant argues that the unsupported and unknown 'option' of being sued by them for up to six years is preferable to prosecution within six months. Moreover, it is clear that the driver was given no options in this regard and the fact remains that VCS are a private company operating a 'contractual breach' regime which attempts to subvert the RB2005.
(iii) The location of the Defendant's alleged contravention is covered by the RB2005, and the authorities are already aware from legal advice that parking enforcement must be laid before magistrates. This is confirmed in two reports that the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive - branded as 'Centro' - published, the first report to the Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) in April 2014 and the second containing its implementation plan for parking enforcement.
(iv) Both documents are explicit in identifying that such car parks are covered by the RB2005 and Centro highlight their legal advice received, that: ''With regard to Rail Car Parks, Centro would need to rely on a breach of Byelaw 14 in order to prosecute a person in contravention of those regulations. [...] Centro's legal team has undertaken a review of appropriate legislation to understand what enforcement action can be taken against customers who park inappropriately and/or cause obstructions to other car park users. Subject to Member approval Railway Byelaw 14 would effectively allow Centro to take appropriate action against cars parked outside of marked bays where the car park is appropriately signed.'' Clause 10.5 states ''penalty notices can therefore be issued and, if considered necessary, an action brought in the Magistrates Court in the event of non-payment of the penalty sum''.
(v) Consequently, and even if the Claimants produce a landowner contract, any breach of the terms and conditions (which is denied) could only have been the subject of a remedy by prosecution sought on or before April 2018, and not by this Claimant, but instead by West Midlands Combined Authority ('WMCA') who operate rail and Metro locations co-ordinated by Centro. At Sandwell and Dudley Park and Ride car park, the parking is provided under terms agreed with WMCA, a 'strategic authority' with powers over transport, economic development and regeneration, established by statutory instrument under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Liability cannot be transferred to the registered keeper
6. Even if the Claimant is able to show that this is 'relevant land', or that they are able to operate a contractual model here, their 2017 Notices to Keeper failed to comply with the POFA. Therefore this Claimant has no cause of action against a registered keeper Defendant. This claim, which relies on Keeper Liability, has no prospect of success as it fails ab initio and should therefore be dismissed.

7. Even if the Court is minded to hear the case, the fact that this is not 'relevant land' means that a registered keeper cannot be held liable under the POFA and there is no alternative rule of law by which a registered keeper can be pursued, in the absence of evidence regarding the identity of the driver in 2017.

8. There can be no adverse inference in the Defendant's choice not to respond to the Claimant's letters and neither can the Defendant be pursued under the law of agency. The owner of VCS and its sister parking company, Excel, is already well aware from a June 2017 Appeal case at Manchester (Excel v Smith, Claim No. C0DP9C4E/M17X062 heard on appeal after the county court Judge fell into error regarding liability) that the Senior Circuit Judge held when upholding the appeal, that Excel's incorrect citation of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd to try to argue that a keeper/driver agency relationship can exist against individuals, is 'improper'.

9. The Defendant was under no legal obligation to disclose the name of the driver and can prove to the Court that more than one person had access to and was insured to drive the vehicle at the time of the alleged breach of contract, so the balance of probabilities is not tipped in the Claimant's favour.

10. This contention is supported by the authority of a January 2019 decision by the Local Government Ombudsman ('LGO') in which, based upon his careful and considered interpretation of the explanatory notes for Schedule 4 of the POFA, the LGO held that it is irrelevant whether or not the landowner is exercising its statutory control powers. Kent County Council were forced to pay a motorist £100 in compensation for issuing a private parking ticket illegally, and allowing their contractor to wrongly tell the registered keeper that they were liable as if POFA could apply on non-relevant land, when it cannot.

11. The Defendant's contentions are further supported by the Department for Transport's 2012 Guidance and explanatory notes about the POFA, at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

12. There, the DFT clarify the question at 4: ''On what type of land does Schedule 4 apply? 4.1 The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.''

Alternative defence - unclear signs & contractual terms
13. The Defendant is aware from visiting the site as a result of this claim, that the current sign at the entrance to the car park carries the name "Network West Midlands" relatively prominently, and offers free parking. This would reasonably be taken by a motorist entering the car park as meaning that this entity is a legal person granting a licence to use the car park. The supposed contractual terms offered by VCS are considerably less prominent, and indeed entirely unreadable by the driver of a moving vehicle.

14. There appears to be a small, non-prominent VCS sign advising of the rules of the car park, with a lack of white space/large lettering. Regarding the £100 (described not as a contractual charge but as a 'penalty' by the WMCA on their website) there is a minuscule small print paragraph at the foot of the sign, in the smallest of the fonts used. It cannot be said that a clear and obvious contract has been prominently brought to the attention of drivers, contrary to (a) the findings of the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') and (b) the mandatory signage rules set out in the Claimant's Trade Body Code of Practice, and (c) the POFA requirement for 'adequate notice' and (d) Lord Denning's 'Red Hand Rule'.

No standing
15. The Claimant has no standing to litigate in this matter and cannot mislead the court and the Defendant regarding this and Keeper Liability. Even if the Claimant's alternative parking regime operates with WMCA or Centro's agreement, somehow believing that private contractual penalties can be offered in lieu of prosecution, there was no privity of contract between the Claimant and the driver due to the RB2005 taking precedence and the entrance signs offering free parking granted by "Network West Midlands" (Centro).

16. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf at RB2005 locations. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has a bare licence to run an ill-founded regime operating contrary to the legal advice sought and published by Centro, and does not have the standing to issue charges on this land in their own name, let alone pursue a parking charge long after the relevant combined authority could have done under RB2005.

ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [/I][2015] UKSC 67 is fully distinguished
17. The Defendant notes that the Claimant intends to rely on the Beavis case, however the facts in the present case differ significantly in a number of important details:
(i) The land, as mentioned previously, is covered by byelaws
(ii) The driver has not been identified
(iii) There was no contractual offer made giving a licence to park nor any promise made or contract agreed based on any prominent signs or properly marked lines
(iv) There is no comparable legitimate interest or commercial justification for charging more than the landowner could claim by way of restitutionary damages and/or under the byelaws.
(v) The charge exists purely to subvert the RB2005 and to penalise park and ride drivers denied a space to park. The penalty rule remains engaged in these cases, the Supreme Court Judges held, and they dismissed any possibility that a charge that exists purely to punish could be recoverable.

Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous

18 - CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

19 - 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.

20 - The standard wording for parking charge/debt recovery contracts is on the Debt Recovery Plus website - ''no recovery/no fee'', thus establishing an argument that the Claimant is breaching the indemnity principle - claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred. This is true, whether or not they used a third party debt collector during the process.

21 - 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 and there has been no legal advice or personal involvement by any solicitor in churning out this template claim.

22 - 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.

23 - Unlike this mendacious and greedy Claimant, ParkingEye themselves took on board the Beavis case outcome and they never add fake costs on top of the parking charge. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters, and all parking firms are very familiar with this case:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/67.html

at para 98. {re ...The desirability of running that parking scheme at no cost, or ideally some profit, to themselves} ''Against this background, it can be seen that the £85 charge had two main objects. One was to manage the efficient use of parking space in the interests of the retail outlets, and of the users of those outlets who wish to find spaces in which to park their cars [...] The other purpose was to provide an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit from its services...''

at para 193. ''Judging by ParkingEye’s accounts, and unless the Chelmsford car park was out of the ordinary, the scheme also covered ParkingEye's costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.''

at para 198. ''The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.''

24 - Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

25 - According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

26 - 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.

27 - 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 earlier General Judgment or Orders of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019) has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating: ''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...''

28 - That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

29 - 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 untrue in terms of the added costs alleged and the statements made, in trying to justify the unjustifiable.

30 - 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.

31 - 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.


Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

clarkcj

Thoughts on the defence please? I will file as soon as I get your okay!

clarkcj

Bump please

Coupon-mad

You won't be able to argue the stuff about 'statute barred' or 'Mag's court' as it's already been shot down in your hearing:

5. Therefore the Claimant is in difficulty regarding their claim, due to these facts:
(i) Any parking enforcement remains in the gift of the relevant authority, by laying a case before magistrates under the applicable byelaw 'RB2005' within six months of a parking event. That period has long since expired and is statute barred.