Vcs ema petrol station yet again!

Loretta1970

Thanks couponmad, I have just edited could you have a look and see if it comes up to standard please. Many thanks Loretta

Coupon-mad

You have the company name wrong, still, and the name of the POFA wrong.

Loretta1970

Hi coupon mad, Hopefully got it right now (thank you for your patience!) If i haven't please let me know. Thanks Loretta

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: CXXXXXX

BETWEEN:

Vehicle Control Services (Claimant)
2 Europa Court
Sheffield Buisness Park
Sheffield
S91XE

-and-

MYSELF (Defendant)

DEFENCE

The defendant denies that the claimant Vehicle Control Services (VCS) of 2 Europa Court Sheffield Business Park Sheffield is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

1 - The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant to have entered a petrol filling station from a private road and stopped briefly where bylaws apply, and as such cannot hold the keeper liable as this land entered is not relevant land.

2- 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 signs and lines are woefully inadequate at the entrance and inside this garage, which is separate from the roadway, and no terms can be said to have been 'bound to be seen', distinguishing this case from the 'brief terms and large lettering' that managed to disengage the penalty rule in what the Supreme Court Judges called the 'unique arrangements' and 'completely different' case of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

2.1 Quite the opposite of the legitimate interest in Beavis, which involved a retail park where parking was on offer (positively invited) and the parking bays had a commercial value, this site within East Midlands Airport has been widely reported as an entrapment zone money-pot for VCS whose sole interest is in drivers not seeing the signs. In the case of this particular Airport Garage site where (purportedly) VCS are contracted to prevent people from stopping apart from around the pumps, there is no simple clear deterrent/warning 'no stopping zone' messages in the form of very large, bright or prominent signs and lines (or any warnings about an instant £100 penalty charge and any signs on the roadway outside are irrelevant to the Garage so cannot be considered) then drivers would stay away and not be caught, however that is not how this industry operates.

2.2 This Claimant's signage is in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act Schedule 2 'the grey list of unfair terms' and the court has a duty under para 71 of that legislation to consider the transparency and prominence of all consumer notices, which (even if they include a price term) are never exempt from the mandatory legal test of fairness.

3- 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.

4- The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 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 abuse of process.

5- 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 and some railway station car parks) is also excluded. byelaws apply at this location therefore the PoFA is not applicable therefore vehicle keeper cannot be held liable for this alleged contravention.

6- The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient 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

7- 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 Statement are true.

With my signature and date below
J

Fruitcake

Vehicle Control Services, not Vehicle control services. Somewhere you need to write out the full name followed by the initials VCS in brackets, then use jut the initials thereafter.

In point 1 you mention "a private road" but in 2 you refer to a "this garage", which is confusing.

Referring to a petrol station/filling station/garage entered from a private road might be better.

In point 4 you need to mention Schedule 4 when you refer to the PoFA. You have also been told to change "attempt at double recovery" to "abuse of process" but still have not done so.

In point 5 you should make it clear that byelaws apply at this location therefore the PoFA is not applicable, therefore a vehicle keeper cannot be held liable.

You really need to go back through and all the previous comments one by one, and amend your defence accordingly.

1505grandad

As above - and I think the Court docs in front of the OP actually state claimant as "Vehicle Control Services Ltd).

Loretta1970

Hi all, just trying to edit my defence again! (Thanks once again for you patience,) ive done some of it but am looking at point 5 which i put pofa 4 section 1 but when ive looked on the pofa website it does not state this but it does on the department for transport site Should i change this?

Loretta1970

Hi Fruitcake coupon mad and everyone helping here, The alleged offence was at east midlands airport, i have re edited is as you can see above. How does look now? Thank you Loretta

The_Deep

You have the company name wrong, still, and the name of the POFA wrong.

In matters such as this 100% accuracy is essential.

Fruitcake

It is looking quite good to me, but I'm no expert on court matters.

In the wording where you start your Defence, move (VCS) to just after the full name.

In 2.1 you should be stating facts not opinions. Perhaps you could change "all this site needed was a" to, this "site does not have ..." or similar, but make sure the rest of the paragraph flows correctly after changing.

Similarly I would change the last sentence to convey the fact that there are no signs in large lettering to warn drivers, but keep the part about other signs except ones at the garage entrance specific to the garage.

Change the word "fine" to "charge" or "parking charge".

If there are no entrance signs then state that there are no entrance signs.

In point 5, the first letter needs to be a capital.

Loretta1970

Hi all, how does it look now? Im wanting to send in my court defence on Monday.
Many thanks for your help and thoughts. Loretta