County Court Claim Vehicle Control Services VCS

clarkcj

Thanks for the feedback.

As a side note how do you feel about me reworking it so abuse of process is the main case argument and I'll stick the relevant land stuff later? I think that's my best chance of getting a result given recent cases

Coupon-mad

Abuse of process is not, and was not designed to be, an actual point of DEFENCE per se. It is purely designed as 'damage limitation' about 'double recovery' by added fake costs.

Clearly it isn't a defence about the £100 or the alleged contract/liability, so why do posters think it is?

clarkcj

So what do you suggest?

Coupon-mad

You already have a defence, as above. I only said to remove this section:

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.

clarkcj

Thanks for your help, I've emailed my defence to the court now after taking your advice.
I will keep you updated on what happens.