County court letter *URGENT*

Umkomaas

Each paragraph should be sequentially, uniquely numbered, no sub-paragraph numbering. See bargepole's advice in the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #2

1505grandad

Who is the claimant - title says VCS paras 7, 8 and 9 say G24


You have obviously missed/not taken notice of C-m's post as you still have para 6.1 re hybrid notes


Para 3 - "3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices."

What assertions - you have stated that the PoC does NOT state.............keeper and/or the driver.................

Did you mean to say:-

"The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate........................" assuming the PoC do state as such.

zeekay

Sorry for the spam--- Draft #3 ---

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: ********

BETWEEN:

************ (Claimant)

-and-


***************** (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number XXXXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The driver at the time of the so called breach was contracted to work inside the ‘Office Outlet Store’ for two hours.
3. The driver was assured by permanent staff members that the vehicle registration would be inputted into a system on the first visit.
4. It is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by clear signage or by a CN.
5. No notices were handed out to the driver as the car was detected entering and leaving by ANPR (automatic detection cameras). Due to the lack of notice and letters being received a month after the so called breach, the driver had no chance to inform the store before its permanent closure.
6. No grace period had been given by the claimant as they try to intimidate the defendant into paying a full penalty for an overstayed amount of 13 minutes and 40 minutes on the two subsequent days (******).
7. The Particulars of the Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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.
8. 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.
9. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner (Office outlet) who no longer operates its store in this car park.
10. 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. The signage isn’t visible at all due to greenery surrounding it and the very small number of signs.
11. 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. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
12. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
13. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
14. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
15. The POFA, 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 x 2. The claim includes an additional £60 x 2, for which no calculation or explanation. The claimant has now, furthermore added a further £29 on the claim which is not explained at all, and which appears to be a clear attempt at double recovery.
16. The claimant (G24 Limited) appear to be adding fraudulent charges for failed debt recovery by Debt Recovery Plus Ltd they have not had to pay.
17. The claimant (G24 Limited) has had no permission to share the defendant’s personal data with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd or Debt Recovery plus Trading as Zenith Collections.
18. No letter before court has ever been received by the defendant from the claimant (G24 Limited) failing to give the defendant concise details of the claim, including; the basis on which the claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated. Furthermore, denying the claimant reasonable time to respond.
19. 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.


Name _____________________

Signature _____________________

Date _____________________

zeekay

1505grandad wrote: »

Who is the claimant - title says VCS paras 7, 8 and 9 say G24


You have obviously missed/not taken notice of C-m's post as you still have para 6.1 re hybrid notes


Para 3 - "3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices."

What assertions - you have stated that the PoC does NOT state.............keeper and/or the driver.................

Did you mean to say:-

"The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate........................" assuming the PoC do state as such.

I am still unsure what to do about this. I do not want to claim to be the driver as there are two named drivers on my car.
I have copied this paragraph from another defence that I seen. Most of the defences on this forum seem to include the exact same paragraph.

Thanks for your help.

Coupon-mad

I think as you were authorised and working there and that's the crux of your defence, admit to being the driver and be open and clear with your evidence as that person who was not 'unauthorised' and can prove it, at the hearing.

Most defences in fact do NOT hide behind the POFA, on here, and if a few do then many re-think that stance at WS and evidence stage.

So, I would start as driver, if it were me, to narrow the issues in dispute to what you REALLY want the Judge to focus on.

Basically, the Claimant's system between them and the store has failed. That's it. You have not failed in any 'relevant obligation' and were not bound by the contract they allege you were.

Redx

Needs the statement of truth at the end

One case was won this week in court by a driver who originally wasn't admitting it but changed their mind after reading the pros and cons

A driver is a first hand witness to the events

zeekay

Perfect. Can't thank you all enough for your help.

Will retype to make it so I am the driver as I think this makes complete sense. Thinking about it now, there's no real case if I don't claim to be as any motorist can 'claim' they were working at a particular store at a time....

Many thanks again. Will update the progress once I get a reply.

zeekay

Little update. So my claim has reached the DQ stage and Gladstones have sent me out the small claims track directions questionnaire which they have filled in. Within this, they have offered mediation.

At this stage, do I really need to do anything. Should I also be filling out a DQ ?


Aside from this, after contacting my local MP... I revisited the parking a few days ago and to great surprise, the ANPR cameras had been completely removed and its looking more like a completely free parking lot at this point. This is a partial win for me although the claim is still going on.

Le_Kirk

You should receive a DQ of your own from the CCBC, which you complete and return to the same e-mail address to which you sent your defence plus serve a copy on the claimant. Re-read post # 5 in this, your very own thread, paying particular attention to points 7 & 8. That should put your mind at ease.

zeekay

*UPDATE* 
CASE WON  
- after more than 2 years of going back and forth, they eventually gave up just before our court date.