Southend Airport Stopping claim

Highport63

Hi,

Received various letter from VCS about my car stopping by the "crossing" at Southend Airport, where someone got into the vehicle.

• Received attached Claim Form dated Feb 14th.
• SAR request made on Feb 15th, nothing received yet.
• AOS done today, Feb 20th.

What's the best strategy for defence?
I've googled a lot of previous Southend airport threads both here and on pepipoo and can't see any that have any kind or resolution, good or bad. 

Redx

I doubt that any have gone as far as court yet

just read all the recent VCS ones for Southend , RHA , LJLA and EMA to get the gist , then draft your own defence based on those you find and post it below

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an unlawful £60, read this

Vhttps://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081/abuse-of-process-district-judge-tells-bwlegal

and complain to the SRA

https://www.sra.org.uk/

If this land is covered by bye laws different rules may apply, all explained in the stickies, have you read them?

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 in some cases, cancellation.

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

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

KeithP

• Received attached Claim Form dated Feb 14th.

• AOS done today, Feb 20th.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th March 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:

1. Print your Defence.
   
2. Sign it and date it.
   
3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
   
4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5. 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'.
   
6. 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.
   
   After filing your Defence, there is more to do...
   
   
7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.
   
8. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CCBC, or download one from the internet - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track , and then complete it as described by bargepole in his 'what happens when' post linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou"]
   
9. 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.
   
10. Send a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant - to their address on your Claim Form.

Highport63

I'm waiting on the SAR fullfilment too as I the number plate on the photo from the original demand for payment is in no way clear.

In terms of Defence, this seems to cover most things I've read previously. Any reason to change anything here?

DEFENCE
1. The Defendant is not liable because Keeper Liability does not apply in this situation.
1.1. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver”.
1.2. The Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration number <reg no> on the material date.
1.3. The Defendant is unable recall which of the named drivers were driving at this time.
1.4. Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is covered by statutory bylaws (in this case The London Southend Airport Byelaws 1997) and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant is put to strict proof so if they disagree with this point it would require them to show evidence including documentary proof from the Airport Authority that this land is not covered by bylaws.
1.5. Further to the above, the DVLA has confirmed in writing that, for this alleged contravention, the provisions of POFA 2012 are not being applied.
1.6. Therefore, as no Keeper Liability can be assigned, the Claimant is put to strict proof regarding the identification of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.
2. The Defendant was not bound by a contract due to inadequate signage.
2.1. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
2.2. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.
2.3. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is concluded (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but concluded in different ways.
2.4. The regulations define an on-premises contract as: “a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract”. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract.
2.5. The regulations define a distance contract as: “a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded”.
2.6. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme.
2.7. The alleged contract is clearly concluded without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer. There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.
2.8. This would therefore be classified as a distance contract.
2.9. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to conclude the contract.
2.10. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The alleged contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium.
2.11. Accordingly, 13.1 states the alleged contract is not binding on the consumer.
2.12. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map, it can be seen from the Claimant’s photographic evidence, that the signs are positioned in such a way as to create an ‘entrapment zone’ where signage is not clearly visible. From where the car was photographed, not a single sign is visible along the visible length of the road. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case.
2.13. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘clearly displayed’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present.
2.14. It is denied that the Defendant 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.
2.15. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.
3. The Claimant has not offered a complete Cause of Action.
3.1. Photos received from the claimant show the driver stopped for less than a minute (7 seconds according to the timestamps). The International Parking Community (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.”
3.2. Due to the predatory practices of the Claimant, the parking bay that is nearest the terminal was made unusable. Signage for the free drop-off point is written in a font so small that it is not possible to read from a moving car, and is only visible from outside the airport property, at a busy roundabout with several exits. More prominent signs directed vehicles to the short stay car park where no grace period was on offer.
3.3. If the Defendant could have seen the signage then the Defendant would have ensured that the free drop-off point in Long Stay Car Park 3 was used.
3.4. According to the Claimants own photographic evidence the road is wide, so no obstruction of other traffic was possible. Additionally, traffic was particularly sparse at this time.
3.5. As a free drop-off point is in fact available and the road is wide enough to accommodate stationary vehicles, the Claimant is put to proof regarding the harm that has been done by stopping where the vehicle did, for the length of time that was evident.
3.6. Thus the Claimant has failed to set out all of the components of a Cause of Action.
4. The Defendant, as registered keeper, cannot be pursued for a stopping contravention.
4.1. The Claimant has obtained details of the Keeper from the DVLA electronically, therefore under a KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) contract with the DVLA.
4.2. The Defendant has not had sight of the KADOE contract despite requesting such, in contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims section 5.2; however a sample contract is available on the DVLA website.
4.3. The Claimant has failed to abide by section D1.8 of the (sample) contract as several Subject Access Requests being made to the Claimant’s Data Protection Officer without response.
4.4. According to the sample contract, the service defines a Parking Charge as “a sum in the nature of a fee or charge, arising under the terms of a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the land)…between the driver and the owner or occupier of the land; or a person authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land…”
4.5. The purpose for which data is provided under this contract is set out in B2.1. As Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 is not applicable in this case, recovery is sought specifically from the driver.
4.6. 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 (“The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars.”
5. 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.
5.1. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge, unless specifically authorised by the principal. The Defendant has requested to the Claimant a copy of the contract between the Claimant and the Landowner but this request has been ignored.
5.2. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter or 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 (the Beavis case) confirmed that a non-landowner parking firm could not have pursued a sum in damages for trespass.
5.3. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf.
6. The Defendant is not liable for a charge of £160.
6.1. If the Court is willing to consider that the Claim may continue to a hearing, the parking charge sum has been exaggerated by 60% and this is a clear abuse of process, even if the Code of Practice (CoP) alludes to such a cost.
6.2. The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt and the Claimant stands in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) Schedule 2 'terms that may be unfair'.
6.3. The Claimant is seeking interest but has not complied with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 (2) as the Claimant has not shown how the interest is calculated, nor upon which basis it is being demanded.
7. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without basis, and the Claimant has no right to pursue said claim. The charge is unconscionable and relies upon a misleading business practice as described above and the attempt to add a further sum in 'damages' that a private parking firm is not entitled to collect, is a clear abuse of process. 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.

<defendant's full name>

<date>

34

Hello,

We've just received exactly the same.
I've read hundreds of posts, but not too many about Southend Airport red/pink lines and this particular company.

We've received 6 other "comical threat" letters, but now this which is a little more serious.
So far, we've made no contact whatsover with Vehicle Control Services, so they have no information other than their blurry pictures.

Our personal defence is probably quite strong on it's own, but what I can confirm is that the keeper (my mother in law) was not the driver. VCS invited us to name the driver but, we filed the letters with the others.

So, we have been to Southend Airport many times as it's our closest one, but this was the first time since the new lines and VCS have been in operation. My wife is disabled (blue badge holder). On arrival (early morning in the dark) we tried to enter the carpark, but it was unclear whether this was no short or long term stay and also unclear for disabled and drop off. Either way the control panel appeared dead. We then turned around and headed for the terminal. Sure, there are lots of signs and red lines every where. The signs are high up, not well lit and contain a lot of text that gradually gets smaller towards the bottom. You certainly can't read these from a moving hatchback car.

We then turned around and headed for what used to be, a layby outside the terminal. We filtered into the lane but instantly became stuck behind a taxi and blocked by a low level plastic bollard. It would seem that this is now a taxi rank.
We had to momentarily wait for the taxi to move. 
We then had a short 10 second conversation with the taxi driver whilst asking where the disabled bit is. So these are the pictures that VCS has... us talking to a taxi driver. Note, that the bit I stopped in is double yellow lines and not the red as detailed in the signage.

We the had to go away from the terminal towards McDonalds where we were dropped off, thus walking back to the airport terminal. It wasn't until we were walking that I could make any sense of the signs, which took me a couple of minutes to read using my phones torch to do so.

A nice long story, but do I simply stick to the legal remedies defence above or do I include more of my personal experience?
One problem I have is that this is currently against my mother in law, who would NOT be able to defend anything if cross examined in any way. She would not get past her first answer.

Redx

your personal stuff comes in your WITNESS STATEMENT a lot further into the process, after your local court has contacted you

a defence is about legal arguments , not what happened

in this case its your mother in law that must deal with it , even if YOU help HER , if her name is on the court claim form, she must deal with it legally, not you , nobody can deal with it instead of her, but you and your family and friends can assist her

if she did not want the court process she should have named the driver , but that option has closed once a court claim has been issued

34

OK, thanks, understood.
But the suggested defence above, commits us to declaring that the driver is unknown. I don't necessarily need to go that way, but as you say it's a bit late. We shared nothing with VCS as their threats appeared childish and fraudulent.

KeithP

34, please start your own thread.

Whilst your issue might be similar to that of Highport63, confusion will certainly reign further down the line.

Once you have started your new thread, please tell us the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form.

34

I'm looking at this form.... again. Is this real? OR is this another middle man bottom feeder.  Money claims online, in a business centre. 

The last small claims court form I had was on official blue and white paper and had a county court stamp. There's also some text on the back which makes me suspicious including the words "may" and "could" Please advise. 

KeithP

34, did you read my earlier post?