VCS > Court Claim Last day to reply

boostin

What happens if I miss the deadline to send my defence?

KeithP

After 4pm today, if you haven't filed a Defence, the Claimant is free to ask the court for a Judgment by Default against you.

Once that Judgment has been made, you owe the Claimant the total amount of their claim.

If you fail to pay the Claimant that amount withing the tiemscale specified on that Judgment, then you will probably find it difficult to obtain credit, e.g. a mortgage, phone contract, even an electricity or gas credit meter.


My advice to you is to file a Defence as soon as you can. It is possible that the Claimant is not watching the ball as well as he should, so after 4pm today it is effectively a race between you and the Claimant to file a Defence or seek Default CCJ respectively.

boostin

I've tried reading different threads but I'm not sure which relate to this claim.

Was the signage adequate? Was the fact that the photo's start only 7 minutes after the car was parked help any argument in this case?

Should the argument be that VCS don't have the rights to charge?

boostin

I've just read your edited post, please help as to what I should base the defence on.
Can I then just pick some of the points that bargepole lists,only I'm not sure which apply to me.

I'm sorry again, more time and research needed I know and also probably answered so many similar threads

Le_Kirk

Pick one of the Bargepole defences that has the usual starting, and ending words, incudes signage, landowner authority, POFA only allows £100 to be claimed etc., add your specific rebuttal of the POC and send it TODAY. You can expand on the defence (but not add new points to it) when you submit your witness statement some weeks down the line and in that you can add the Abuse of Process points by Coupon-mad and beamerguy.

boostin

IN THE COUNTY Court

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked on the material date in a marked bay allocated to Company XXXX at XXXX Business Park, and had a valid permit to be parked in that bay.
No. 2 doesn't apply in this case??



3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant !!!8220;was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)!!!8221;. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient prorpietary 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.

8. 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.

9. 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
Last




Mr Jonothon Davies v Vehicle Control Services
Caernarfon Court District Judge Jones-Evans Case number FTQZ4W28 4TH SEPTEMBER 2019

boostin

Argh, I have no access to a laptop or PC.

Daft mobile.

Could I simply state the case involving Mr Jonothon Davies v Vehicle Control Services 4/9/19?

nosferatu1001

No, you cannot "simply" do that!

You have no choice
Get a pc now. Go to a library fgor heavens sake - somewhere, anywhere with net access
You can even get PDF converters that work on phones - thats all you need, to get a PDF of your defence EMAILED to the court. No printer needed

boostin

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, you cannot "simply" do that!

You have no choice
Get a pc now. Go to a library fgor heavens sake - somewhere, anywhere with net access
You can even get PDF converters that work on phones - thats all you need, to get a PDF of your defence EMAILED to the court. No printer needed

So would the bargepole defence work in my case?

The point I was making was could I add the Davies case as an example now?

boostin

@Coupon-mad can you please link me to the "perfect defence"?