We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Vcs - court case first notification
Options
kezzawilks
Posts: 11 Forumite
Hi everyone, Looking for support and advise on the following:
In Nov 2019 I received a 'letter before claim' from VCS regarding a parking notice for a shared family vehicle that was registered to me. This was the first documentation I have received about this 'offence' dated back in Dec 2016. I have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time and I have since sold the vehicle and moved address. I requested from VCS a copy of the NTK and photographic evidence of the date/time, vehicle, signage etc but they only responded with some closeup pictures of the vehicle. Nothing showing a notice was left on the vehicle, the signage in the area nor any copies of any documentation. I have since visited the land in question and it is a badly kept piece of land with one sign facing in the wrong direction to the entrance, however, VCS have sent nothing showing the signage that was present 3 years ago. I have now received a court claim and immediately sent the acknowledge of receipt. I have read through lots of posts and I am preparing my defence and hoped I could get some feedback on the following before I submit:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: *******
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)
-and-
***********r (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration *******, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this claimant, to be parked on the material date on a piece of spare land, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.
2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. The driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.
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. 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 defendant received no ‘Notice to driver or Notice to keeper documentation. The defendant moved address in February 2018.
4. The defendant requested a copy of the ‘Notice to driver’, ‘Notice to keeper’ , photographic evidence of the area parked and signage, and a copy of the contract between claimant and landlord.
5. The defendant only provided closeup photos of the front and rear of the vehicle and has not sent any documentation to the claimant as requested.
6. 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.
7. 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 current signage at the land is inadequate and the claimant has provided no evidence of the signage in effect on the date of the parking charge.
7.1. 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.
7.2. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
8. 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.
8.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
8.2. 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.
9. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
In Nov 2019 I received a 'letter before claim' from VCS regarding a parking notice for a shared family vehicle that was registered to me. This was the first documentation I have received about this 'offence' dated back in Dec 2016. I have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time and I have since sold the vehicle and moved address. I requested from VCS a copy of the NTK and photographic evidence of the date/time, vehicle, signage etc but they only responded with some closeup pictures of the vehicle. Nothing showing a notice was left on the vehicle, the signage in the area nor any copies of any documentation. I have since visited the land in question and it is a badly kept piece of land with one sign facing in the wrong direction to the entrance, however, VCS have sent nothing showing the signage that was present 3 years ago. I have now received a court claim and immediately sent the acknowledge of receipt. I have read through lots of posts and I am preparing my defence and hoped I could get some feedback on the following before I submit:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: *******
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)
-and-
***********r (Defendant)
________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration *******, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this claimant, to be parked on the material date on a piece of spare land, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.
2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. The driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.
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. 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 defendant received no ‘Notice to driver or Notice to keeper documentation. The defendant moved address in February 2018.
4. The defendant requested a copy of the ‘Notice to driver’, ‘Notice to keeper’ , photographic evidence of the area parked and signage, and a copy of the contract between claimant and landlord.
5. The defendant only provided closeup photos of the front and rear of the vehicle and has not sent any documentation to the claimant as requested.
6. 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.
7. 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 current signage at the land is inadequate and the claimant has provided no evidence of the signage in effect on the date of the parking charge.
7.1. 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.
7.2. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
8. 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.
8.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
8.2. 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.
9. 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. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
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.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.
Name
Signature
0
Comments
-
What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?kezzawilks wrote: »I have now received a court claim and immediately sent the acknowledge of receipt.
Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
MCOL claim history will give you a definitive answer to that.0 -
Court case issued 30/12/19
AOS submitted 10/1/2020
AOS received 13/1/20200 -
With a Claim Issue Date of 30th December, and having filed an Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd February 2020 to file your Defence.kezzawilks wrote: »Court case issued 30/12/19
AOS submitted 10/1/2020
AOS received 13/1/2020
That's over two 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.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- 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'.
- 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.
There is more to do after having filed your Defence...- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
- 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.
- 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.
- Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
In paragraph 2.1 you state there was no NTD and in paragraph 8.1 you talk about the misleading practice of leaving hybrid notices..... I suggest you look at this and adjust to suit. You cannot have it both ways.0
-
Hi, yes thanks for this information. I did read this on here.. Im hoping somebody can read and advise if my defence reads ok?0
-
Apart from the bits I've mentioned and the fact that there is another useful bit about signs and the font being too small (which can normally be found in the 17 pre-written defences linked in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2), has the claimant tried to add on spurious charges for debt collecting - say £60 - if so there is much more you can add to the defence about Abuse of Process. Search for a thread by beamerguy (with a comment at post # 14 on that thread by Coupon-mad) and use that.kezzawilks wrote: »Hi, yes thanks for this information. I did read this on here.. Im hoping somebody can read and advise if my defence reads ok?0 -
Your 8.1 is still wrong. Look up the meaning of AVERRED and see if you mean that or do you mean DENIED. You are still referring to non-hybrid CNs. Was there or was there not a PCN or a bit of card saying this is not a PCN on the car windscreen. I know you read it on the forum but you have to check it suits your situation before using it. Anyway that's why you post here for critiques so it can be adjusted before submission.0
-
Apart from the bits I've mentioned and the fact that there is another useful bit about signs and the font being too small (which can normally be found in the 17 pre-written defences linked in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2), has the claimant tried to add on spurious charges for debt collecting - say £60 - if so there is much more you can add to the defence about Abuse of Process. Search for a thread by beamerguy (with a comment at post # 14 on that thread by Coupon-mad) and use that.
forgive me but I cannot find this- Ive tried doing a search but im getting an error message- where would I find this?0 -
Search using the Advanced Search on Search this Forum on first page of the forum, putting beamerguy as User and Abuse of Process as keyword(s), change the Radio Button from Threads to Posts and submit now. This gives you access to THIS thread. I don't think the search works very well if viewing the forum on a phone. Once you have found that thread go to post # 14 or click HERE.kezzawilks wrote: »forgive me but I cannot find this- Ive tried doing a search but im getting an error message- where would I find this?0 -
NEWBIES thread is third thread down from the top of this forum
the abuse of process thread is here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards