VCS claim form/court papers received today

KeithP

Velocifero wrote: »

The Issue Date is 30/12/19. Once I've posted this post I'll do the AoS.

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th December, you have until Monday 20th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 5th January, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To file an AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd February 2020 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence could be filed via email as suggested here:

Print your Defence.
1. Sign it and date it.
   
2. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
3. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
   
4. Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
   
5. No need to do anything on MCOL, but do check it after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not, chase the CCBC until it is.

Having filed your Defence, there is more to do...

1. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
2. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.
3. The completed DQ should be returned by email to the CCBC to the same address and in the same way as your Defence was filed earlier.
4. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

Velocifero

I finally got an answer to my SAR, its incomplete but I feel that's a battle for another time. Now I know exactly where the car was thanks to the incredibly blurry photographs provided by VCS and that it was stopped there for 30 seconds according to the time stamps on the photographs. I'm not sure if this link will work thanks to the anti-spam nuisance on the forum but you might be able to see it on google maps if you copy and paste this (tinyurl.com/r3xptdd) and then zoom in a little.

I've had a thorough look on this forum and only been able to find two other people who have had PCNs from this road and neither had a defence for me to look at. This thread (tinyurl.com/v7mvuky) says that Princes Parade is private land operated by Peel Land and Property Limited. Does it being private land change things? I've tried searching on google to see if different laws apply but I haven't found anything saying either way.

At the time this happened I'm not sure if my partner was a named driver on the vehicle, if they weren't would that change things? Could the court force me to prove there was another registered driver or not?

This whole thing is stressing me out a great deal, I've spent at least twenty hours reading through threads on this forum and I'm not really any closer to understanding what I need to put in my defence or what half of the thing in defences posted here mean or how they would relate to my case.

KeithP

When you started this thread you had a whole month to write a Defence.

You now have a week and a half.

Keep in mind:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd February 2020 to file your Defence.

There are seventeen examples of winning Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread. There's a link to the NEWBIES thread in my earlier post.

nosferatu1001

If it was public land, then it would be different. it being private land is the ONLY reason youre in this mess!

As for knowing who is a named driver or not - i mean, youve got the docs. right there. Look at them. Or call up the insurance company. We cant tell you the answer, only you. And yes, if you claim something it is useful to be able to prove it!

Redx

Of course it's private land , but if it's port authority land the POFA doesn't apply

The insurance aspect is irrelevant , other than there could be more than one driver (including me , thousands of people could be the driver , including mechanics and police) , but all evidence is useful

Get on with drafting the defence , perhaps based on the private business estate near the Airport , which is similar , or on LJLA or RHA defences

Velocifero

I think its done. I've read a bunch of the defences on here and had this finished Thursday night/Friday morning and then continued to look through the forum and not actually believe it was done.

Tips? pointers? Advice?


I'll be honest, I'm not sure if point 2 is relevant as I don't really understand it despite reading the procedure rules on justice.gov.uk but it was present in every single defence I've read on here so I guess it is.

In The County Court

Claim No: XXXX

Between

XXXXXX Ltd (Claimant)

-and-
XXXxxx
(Defendant)

____________
DEFENCE
____________

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXX on the material date. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. 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.

3. Photos received from the claimant show the the driver stopped briefly for less than a minute. The Independent parking committee (IPC), of which the claimant is an operator, details a grace period in their code of practice (Part B, section 15). Part B, Section 15.1 states “Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site.”



4. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (case number: B9GF0A9E) (2016) in regards to distinguishing stopping from parking.


5. 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. 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 management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the land 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.

6. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner that would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them.

7. 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.

8. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

9. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 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.

10. 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.

Statement of Truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Le_Kirk

A good start and you now need to search for and read the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and the comment at post # 14 of that thread so you can add some more ammunition to your defence about the spurious £60 they've added. For further reading, search for threads by CEC16 and basher52.

Velocifero

I've already read up on it but I don't know how much to put in, for example this defence has a section on the Abuse of Process that's probably bigger than the whole of the defence I've written. People say to keep the defence short and simple but that defence isn't but then as no one has commented on their defence I don't know if its worth adding some of the things they've mentioned into mine.

1505grandad

Para 3 - IPC = International Parking Community

Le_Kirk

You would be hard pressed to find a better defence than one that has been written/edited by Coupon-mad. If the length of the defence bothers you, so long as you leave in SOME reference to Abuse of Process, you can put the rest of it in as a Witness Statement (WS) later in the process.