Vcs simon renshaw smith

Coupon-mad

Also search the forum for fluttering ticket Council defence

pesky_robway

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes 17 of them linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2; just look for the one with fairly similar facts and adapt it.

Thats great thank you

pesky_robway

beamerguy wrote: »

Don't worry, you have all the help you need on this forum.

A little secret for you ...... VCS are not the smartest page in the book
and this sounds like a prime reason for the judge to whoop them ..... AGAIN

TIP: Make sure you have your costs schedule (about £95 average) ready for the judge when you win

So does that mean i can claim costs back from them?how do i draw up this schedule?

beamerguy

pesky_robway wrote: »

So does that mean i can claim costs back from them?how do i draw up this schedule?

YES .. your costs are just that, your time and effort, time off work, travel etc. As it's a county court there are limits so up to £95
You can type in word with bullet points to pass to the judge

Redx

Covered in that newbies thread you read, same as everything else

pesky_robway

Thanks for all responses.

I am now writing my defence.if possible could someone over llok it as i am not the best with this

Defence statement

Preliminary Matters

1. The Particulars of Claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5.

1.1 The Claimant are known to be a serial litigants and issuer of speculative claims, using “template” particulars of claim, with no due diligence.

2. The defendent approached the parking officer on the evening of 31/3/2019 after recieveing a parking ticket and produced a valid ticket.The parking officer noted he had missed the pay and display ticket and also noted on his electronic device that he had seen a valid pay and display ticket and attatched a picture of the ticket to his file.Thedefendent also took a picture of the notes on the parking officers electronic device and can provide it if needed

2.1 The Defendant appealed the postal Parking Charge Notice on the 11/04/2019 explaining what had happened and included a copy of the!ticket!displayed on the day providing the Claimant with clear evidence that the defendant acted in good faith and made all reasonable endeavours to comply with the terms and condition (“T&C”) - as far as they were understood.

2.2 This was an opportunity for the Claimant to act reasonably and cancel the charge.

2.3 The appeal was rejected on the 29/04/2019

2.4 The defendent requested a subject access request on the 16/08/2019 but as yet havnt had a reply

3 The Defendant requests the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action

Background
4 The Defendant is the authorised registered keeper and the driver in question at the time of the alleged incident.

5 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

5.1 The Defendant paid and displayed a!ticket!so all details could be seen. The!ticket!was made of very flimsy paper, and was, to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the!ticket!moved out of sight or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct.

5.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
a) A gust of wind may have later moved the flimsy paper from sight, despite the windows & doors being locked.
b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the!ticket!to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

5.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

5.4 Notwithstanding the above, the flimsiness of the!ticket!certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be well aware of the problem, which has become known as ''fluttering!tickets''. Because they profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather, it is averred that this Claimant wilfully failed to address this issue (e.g. by adding sticky backing to the!ticket, allowing it to be fixed in place). Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

5.5 The parking!ticket!purchased was acquired by entering the vehicle registration number into the!ticket!machine. Therefore the Claimant had a full record of full parking payment having been made for the parked vehicle without the!ticket!being visible on the dashboard.!

5.6 The Claimant does not dispute that the Defendant purchased a!ticket, that it gave a licence to park .

5.7 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

5.8 signage states that their is 30 minutes free parking offered with no need to display a ticket. There is no evidence provided that my vehicle was observed for 30 minutes bringing it over the free parking time

5.9 The defendent disputes all of this claim and asks the court to dismiss the case

To my knowledge all of this statement is true

Redx

It should be set out like the 2 bargepole defences , starting with the word Defence , no word Statement after it , leading me to believe that you used an old defence with incorrect wording plus all those forum typos that are in it , again showing its old and mangled

Start with the concise defence by bargepole , add the abuse of process paragraphs to object to the spurious added costs

Add no landowner authority , then address the POC they wrote on the claim form

This should be the basis of your defence , possibly with some background , but leave any story for the witness statement further down the line

Also decide if this is a driver based defence with you as the primary witness , or a keeper defence hiding behind POFA , it's one or the other

pesky_robway

Redx wrote: »

It should be set out like the 2 bargepole defences , starting with the word Defence , no word Statement after it , leading me to believe that you used an old defence with incorrect wording plus all those forum typos that are in it , again showing its old and mangled

Start with the concise defence by bargepole , add the abuse of process paragraphs to object to the spurious added costs

Add no landowner authority , then address the POC they wrote on the claim form

This should be the basis of your defence , possibly with some background , but leave any story for the witness statement further down the line

Also decide if this is a driver based defence with you as the primary witness , or a keeper defence hiding behind POFA , it's one or the other

Thanks.this is all very confusing to me.

Redx

So read a recently approved VCS or Excel court case defence and adapt it

If it has the several abuse of process paragraphs in it , and it's a 2019 defence , it should not need much in the way of adapting it

If in any doubt , follow what I told you as the core of your draft , especially when it starts and ends like the concise defence by bargepole

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes 17 of them linked in the NEWBIES thread post #2; just look for the one with fairly similar facts and adapt it.

Like I said above. Really easy.

Was your 'PCN' on the windscreen a red card saying 'this is NOT a Parking charge'? If so, then adapt the VCS hybrid PCN 'myparking charge' defence, of course, that's why it's there among the 17 examples in the NEWBIES thread, so people don't compose their own and miss the point.

Or was it an old PCN on the windscreen from 2015 or so? If so just search the forum for VCS or Excel defence threads and copy a more concise and recent one, and show us that, with a point added to cover this as already advised:

As you did pay & display and the ticket was dislodged by a passenger later, it can be argued that you as driver DD NOT breach the terms to pay & display, given the signs say nothing about 'permanently displaying' the ticket while you are absent.