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).
📨 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!
Please Help VCS Claim gone to Mediation
Options
mlees98
Posts: 7 Forumite
both parties filed a directions questionnaire (N180) and now the claim against me has gone to mediation what do i do next. Any help much appreciated. The car is a lease company car
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 area named in the claim, Hartlepool Marina, is subject to the byelaws of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, of which you are aware, and only the driver can be held liable for the alleged breach.
4. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES has failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the Defendant in law. Given that the car is insured with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper was necessarily the driver. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant
5. 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.
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. 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.
8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12.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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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...''
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
Name
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 area named in the claim, Hartlepool Marina, is subject to the byelaws of the Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority and is therefore not relevant land for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, of which you are aware, and only the driver can be held liable for the alleged breach.
4. The vehicle has multiple drivers and VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES has failed to comply with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, para 14 and thus failed to transfer liability to the Defendant in law. Given that the car is insured with more than one driver, the Claimant cannot assume nor tip the balance of probabilities, that the registered keeper was necessarily the driver. Thus, the Claimant has failed to establish a cause of action and liability against the Defendant
5. 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.
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. 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.
8. The driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12.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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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...''
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
Name
0
Comments
-
Mediation is a waste of time and should be avoided. It is not mandatory and will (probably) only make you angry and frustrated.
From what I have read on here, the mediator is often seen to be on the side of the claimant.
They want the full amount plus fake add on charges.
You want to pay nothing.
End of mediation.I married my cousin. I had to...I don't have a sister.
All my screwdrivers are cordless."You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks1 -
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.
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]You never know how far you can go until you go too far.1 -
Did you tick mediation on your copy of the DQ?0
-
Mediation is only suitable in cases like insurance claims where liability has been admitted and it's a question of how much is being paid out.
Some of my relatives went to mediation regarding an insurance claim for a six figure sum. The person had been off work for some time as a result of an accident caused by negligence. The cause of the accident was not disputed it was a question of agreeing an amount of compensation.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.1 -
As above , the claimant will want the full amount , you offer zero , there will be no middle ground , no compromise , so you won't settle anything at mediation , mediation is not suitable for parking invoice issues
You don't need any help , your reply is to offer nothing and they should cancel the charge , simple as that0 -
If I had gone to mediation I would have only ever been prepared to pay an admin fee of say £10.00. They would never have accepted that. It would have been a total waste of time.
Nolite te bast--des carborundorum.1 -
The first paragraph of your opening post tells us who the driver is.
Your Defence spends a lot of time telling the Court and the Claimant that POFA doesn't apply and that the Claimant does not know who the driver is.
The parking companies are known to trawl this forum just waiting for people to trip themselves up and can try and use your posts against you.
Suggest you edit your opening post accordingly.
Also just checking... in para 2 you say you are the Registered Keeper. Often/usually the lessee is not the RK, but the lessor is.1 -
Thank you for your help so far. The small claims telephone mediation service letter states that if they do not hear from me my case will be transferred to a court for allocation what do you suggest i do?0
-
You have surely answered your own question, assuming you are taking the advice here, and not wanting the mediation route:Thank you for your help so far. The small claims telephone mediation service letter states that if they do not hear from me my case will be transferred to a court for allocation what do you suggest i do?if they do not hear from me my case will be transferred to a court1 -
The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »You have surely answered your own question, assuming you are taking the advice here, and not wanting the mediation route:
But what happens when it gets allocated to court how can i be sure i will win?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards