VCS County court claim

ninho123

Hi,

I've had a read through some of the detailed and amazing help outlined in the various threads. I do have a query which I've not been able to find a response for. A quick summary of whats happened -

Parked in a visitor spot of a friends flat whilst at university in 2016. It was a private gated car park and there were signs everywhere. The car belonged to my brother. I had a visitor permit but due to it being quite small it slipped below the darkened area of the windscreen. I got a ticket and after emailing them with the proof of having a permit and receiving no mercy, I searched online and thereafter ignored the letters that came after - these were all directed to my brother. I told him they'll stop sending letters if we keep ignoring them. Unfortunately my brother has handed me a county court claim sent against him just today. Its dated 30/12/19. Its already the 8/1/2020. My brother is now annoyed at me as he's told me to pay it a few times. I'd like to now either:

a) Defend it but I was wondering if I could change the name of the defendant to my name when I sign up to MCOL so my brother doesn't have the CCJ against him - hence my thread as I'm about to submit an AOS but wondered if I could with my name?

b) Pay the sum of £185 outlined by them to avoid the hassle, I really don't have the time to go all the way back to university to try and compile a case. I'm now working full time.

I'm also confused as to whether I can still apply for a SAR?

Im sorry for the post, I know theres a lot of detailed information on here already, but if anyone could advise me on the best way to play it. Also bearing in mind at the time I took a one day temporary insurance out to move some stuff to my student halls.

Many many thanks in advance!

KeithP

You cannot change the name of the Defendant.

This claim is against your brother and he needs to defend it.

Of course you can do all the work if you like, but it must be done in the named Defendant's name.

The Acknowledgment of Service must also be done in the Defendant's name. Any question like "name (if different)" refers to a situation where a Defendant's name has change, e.g. due to marriage. It is not there to change the Defendant to another person.


With a Claim Issue Date of 30th December, you have until Monday 20th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but 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 nearly 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.

Of course, everywhere I have said 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

Coupon-mad

a) Defend it but I was wondering if I could change the name of the defendant to my name when I sign up to MCOL so my brother doesn't have the CCJ against him - hence my thread as I'm about to submit an AOS but wondered if I could with my name?

Your brother won't get a CCJ because we consistently (for over 2 years) win 99% of these cases, and the odd losing Defendant pays if a Judge says so, within 30 days and no judgment even leaves a smudge, at all, on their credit rating.

Your BROTHER is the Defendant. He must attend the local court to win this but you can help him. We do this all the time.

ninho123

Thanks so much Keith P and Coupon-mad! You've given me strength to fight it. My brothers agreed to attend court, so he has submitted the AOS. I will now start working on the defence.

I'll try my best to write something up by mid next week. May I request someone to take a look at it once I'm done?? That would be awesome,

Coupon-mad

We will all help you.

ninho123

Thanks so much in advance to whoever can help/have a read!

ninho123

So I've just deleted a defence statement because I came across one that I really liked! Ive updated it and this is how it reads now:


Defence:

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

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that 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.

4. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.

5. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question. The Claimant is put to 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.

6. The reason for this parking company's presence on this site can only be for the sole purpose of deterring parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of drivers authorised by the leaseholder of the premises. Instead, contrary to various consumer laws, this Claimant carries out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests they are purportedly there to uphold.

7. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and general visitor bays for visitors. Entry to the car park is by means of a key fob/passcode – only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are therefore de facto authorised to be there.

8. The driver was allowed the right to park by a tenant of the building. He was parked in a visitor bay, and had a visitor permit.

8. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
PR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

9. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

10. In this case the provision requiring payment of £185 is an unenforceable penalty clause and is not a genuine estimate of loss incurred to the claimant.

11.The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 2015 is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

12. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

13. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 2014 a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

14. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

15. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstone’s' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing: ''IT IS ORDERED THAT the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

16. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

17. There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

18. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.



Any pointers would be great! I have until the 2nd of February to submit, but I'll have it sent early next week hopefully,

The_Deep

Your brother may also wish to complain to his MP as n[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ine times out of ten these tickets are scams, it has been known to get the charge cancelled. AFAICS, you have done nothing wrong, breached no contract and the PPC are acting unreasonably. Your brother therefore has a good chance of winning this in court.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]



.

Castle

There's a registration number showing in para 3.

ninho123

Thanks guys, I’ll get on to writing to the MP too!

Coupon-mad

You need to remove your VRM from the draft above; this is a public forum.

The defence looks fine, and good to go. I'd even leave in the bit about the £50 legal costs, given it is VCS and they have not spent any such costs.

Stick around and read bargepole's COURT PROCEDURES thread as linked under the red heading in the NEWBIES thread post #2, so you know what to do when.

No asking how to fill in the DQ N180 form or why the solicitor sends you theirs first with a daft template letter...read lots of similar threads and be ready for each stage.