VCS county court stage - witness statement review please

Lt20

First post - I have tried to read all post that I think apply however I think I may have cocked things up a bit....

Back in 2016 i received a letter from vcs about my vehicle being parked at a time when I was not the driver. There was a ticket issued on the windscreen. It was in the evening, snowing and The pub car park was dark and the driver genuinely did not realise there was a machine Etc having parked there previously foc (I realise this isn’t a defence but the signs can’t have been very visible)
At the time I read this forum and replied to vcs via email (unfortunately no longer have access to this email address) basically With the template ‘I wasn’t the driver’ and not naming the driver.
I continued to receive letters from vcs and then their (various) appointed debt collectors (at least 2 firms maybe 3- all with varying amounts ) all of whom I ignored. I sold the car back in 2016 and later moved and stupidly having not heard anything for at least a year I ditched all the docs in the move figuring they’d given up.
Fast forward to I think nov /Dec 2019 I received a letter threatening me with Ccj/ court action I ignored this as I had before- only this time I’ve now received a claim form from county court business centre in Northampton (don’t know why if the parking was in Nottingham?)
The issue date is 30 Dec 2019. I was about to start the AOS when I think I’m better waiting until 18/1/20? Hope that’s right.
I’m thinking now I should have sent a SAR to VCS upon the ccj threats. However I’m now planning to do this although I don’t know if I will get the info back in time- worth a try as I have no paperwork to defend my case atm!
The other issue is I’m out of the country 02/02-18/02 which will be directly after my deadline so is it likely anything will happen after I file my defence and whilst I’m not in the country?
The particulars of the claim are:
‘The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendants vehicle ### was identified in ####on 29/01/2016 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit. At all material times the defendant was the register keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer year by entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest’ Amount claimed 160.00court fee 25.00 total 185.00.

I intend to defend on grounds I wasn’t the driver. But I was also wondering if there were other grounds to strengthen my case like is there a time limit for them to take me to court for this? Or anything else that jumps out from the particulars of claim ?
Please advise
Thanks
LT20

Redx

VCS have 6 years to issue a court claim, its been that way since 1973 for England & Wales

the government run 2 centres for issuing court claims, the main one is the CCBC in Northampton, which is why that postal claim form came from that government office (no different than having the DVLA in Swansea, even if your car has a Newcastle registered number plate

its the same for almost everyone, especially with private Parking tickets

as an R K and not the driver, its likely that YOU have no liability because VCS will have failed the law named POFA

read other recent cases and use a defence adapted from those , perhaps start by looking at the court case thread by basher52 (and read the thread by CEC16 too)

get the SAR emailed to the DPO at VCS asap, attaching a copy of the claim form
read the newbies thread post #2 as well


do the AOS asap , online, following the guide in the newbies thread , because more than 5 days have elapsed since the issue date


once the defence and DQ are both emailed to the CCBC , nothing will happen for months , so february is safe

Coupon-mad

The issue date is 30 Dec 2019. I was about to start the AOS when I think I’m better waiting until 18/1/20? Hope that’s right.

It's fine to do the AOS as soon as the five days for service has passed.

The other issue is I’m out of the country 02/02-18/02 which will be directly after my deadline so is it likely anything will happen after I file my defence and whilst I’m not in the country?

Nope, file & serve your defence just before that, on say 31st January, and make sure that the MCOL record updates to show they received your emailed defence. Then go on holiday happily, knowing you will miss nothing.

You also need to email a SAR to VCS but it won't come back till Feb, so crack on with reading other VCS threads and copying from their defences. There are LOADS.

Oh, and read the stuff I literally just posted on a VCS thread, about Excel v Ambler, a fantastic judgment to use against VCS or Excel (sister companies) re PDT sites.

KeithP

Lt20 wrote: »

I’ve now received a claim form from county court business centre in Northampton.
The issue date is 30 Dec 2019.

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 over three 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, your work is not yet complete.

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.
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.

Lt20

Ok thanks both
I will do the aos now and crack on with the sar to vcs inc copy of claim form (and will read the recent Excel v Ambler post you mentioned)

Lt20

Thank you- I misunderstood about the AOS - I thought I got 14 days from when I started that hence why I thought it better to wait until nearer the 14 day deadline but will do the AOS now

Lt20

Re writing my defence do I just do a standard one as I’m unlikely to get anything back from the sar before my deadline
Do I then expand on my case particulars in my ws?

Le_Kirk

The results of your submission of SAR will be more useful to you at Witness Statement (WS) stage, so just crack on with your defence. Look at the 17 pre-written examples linked in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2 and also read threads by CEC16 and basher52 for recent defences that include the Abuse of Process details.

Your WS is in support of your defence and provides a narrative of what happened on the day(s) and subsequently and gives you the means to introduce evidence.

Lt20

Hello again I’ve set aside today to write my defence statement which is due by 31/1.
I’m struggling to be honest - I feel like my defence has no substance as I have no idea yet what evidence they are relying on (SARS info won’t be back until 12/2/20 ish)
I have a draft which I shall post in a moment but I’ve just noticed that on the claim form it says
The defendants vehicle was identified in **** Lane, Nottingham in breach of the advertised terms and conditions.

The vehicle was parked in a pub car park not on *** lane itself. Shouldn’t vcs be staying exactly where it was parked? The pubs address is on a different road but the car park is accessed from *** lane. Should I be addressing this misinformation in my defence statement? Or is this the standard terminology used by vcs etc?
Thanks

Lt20

Herewith is my attempt at a defence statement open to critique. I live in a different city therefore plan to visit the area in the next few days and hopefully look at signage (although this will have differed in the last 4 years no doubt) - if applicable I will added in paras about signage etc:


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

2. The facts are that the Defendant was registered keeper of vehicle registration XXXX XXX at the time of the alleged breach of contract. The Defendant was not the driver.

3. 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.

4. Due to the incomplete address of the area the alleged ‘breach of contract’ took place and the 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. 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.

6. 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. This Claim is an Abuse of Process and the Claim should be struck out as the costs on the claim are disproportionate and disingenuous.
7. CPR 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.
7.2. 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.
7.3 The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case 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.
7.4 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.
7.5. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA 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.
7.6 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.
7.7. 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 Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet
the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing. The defendant quotes the words of the district judge:
''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...''
7.8. 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.
7.9. 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.
7.10. 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.

8. 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.

Le_Kirk

You need to make more of the confusion of addresses in your opening paragraph 4. You know the circumstances but the judge doesn't. We don't recommend using Ladak (your paragraph 7.5). The fact that you have shows that you have found an old defence, which, in itself is OK but there are more robust defence arguments available in the Abuse of Process thread by beamerguy and including the comment at post # 14 on that thread by Coupon-mad. Search again for it and read the up-to-date script. Also read threads by CEC16 and basher52.