VCS Claim Form for Stopping in a Restricted Bus Stop at Southend Airport.

TNA.Music

Thanks guys, here is the letter to my MP I intend to send and would like your opinion please:

Dear MyMP, 

I am writing to you with concern over the way I and many, many other people in UK are being treated by private parking companies. In my case I am referring to Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) and their extortionary claim. 

On the 5th September 2019 the car I am registered owner of was recorded by VCS CCTV vehicle as stopping for 6 seconds in ‘restricted bus stop’ at Southend Airport.

For your information and verifiable by Google Street, on the street/road where this ‘offence’ happened there is no a single ‘no stopping’ sign facing drivers in either direction and there is no any ‘bus stop’ sign facing drivers at or near the ‘restricted bus stop’. Additionally, the VCS CCTV vehicle was conveniently parked in the same ‘restricted bus stop’, just a meter in front of my car.

For this ‘offence’ I was served Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100. In PCN they said that I can appeal it on MyParkingCharge website which is not an independent body but rather the front of the legal firm representing VCS. This is unacceptable practice of gathering information about my potential legal defence.

As I decided not to allow these modern highwaymen to rob me I am now preparing for court appearance and regrettably waste of my time and our, taxpayers, money on completely illegal attempt to claim ‘parking charge, contractual costs and interest’ as if I had any contract with VCS and as if they were landowner of this private land. The amount they are claiming now has risen to £185 for god knows what.

I simply cannot understand why our government tolerates this horrible, extortionate and illegal practise in the UK, worldwide known for its long standing democratic and legal history. 

Please find the link to the latest legislation related to the conduct of these companies below, for your ready reference:

Link provided by Coupon-mad

Kind Regards TNA.Music

TNA.Music

Coupon-mad said:

Someone has just posted a defence about stopping at Southend Airport.  Copy & adapt that one.

@Coupon-mad - could you please give me the link to the defence? Thanks!

AlbertBentwhistle

TNA.Music said:

Thanks guys, here is the letter to my MP I intend to send and would like your opinion please:

Dear MyMP, 

I am writing to you with concern over the way I and many, many other people in UK are being treated by private parking companies. In my case I am referring to Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) and their extortionary claim. 

On the 5th September 2019 the car I am registered owner of was recorded by VCS CCTV vehicle as stopping for 6 seconds in ‘restricted bus stop’ at Southend Airport.

For your information and verifiable by Google Street, on the street/road where this ‘offence’ happened there is no a single ‘no stopping’ sign facing drivers in either direction and there is no any ‘bus stop’ sign facing drivers at or near the ‘restricted bus stop’. Additionally, the VCS CCTV vehicle was conveniently parked in the same ‘restricted bus stop’, just a meter in front of my car.

For this ‘offence’ I was served Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100. In PCN they said that I can appeal it on MyParkingCharge website which is not an independent body but rather the front of the legal firm representing VCS. This is unacceptable practice of gathering information about my potential legal defence.

As I decided not to allow these modern highwaymen to rob me I am now preparing for court appearance and regrettably waste of my time and our, taxpayers, money on completely illegal attempt to claim ‘parking charge, contractual costs and interest’ as if I had any contract with VCS and as if they were landowner of this private land. The amount they are claiming now has risen to £185 for god knows what.

I simply cannot understand why our government tolerates this horrible, extortionate and illegal practise in the UK, worldwide known for its long standing democratic and legal history. 

Please find the link to the latest legislation related to the conduct of these companies below, for your ready reference:

Link provided by Coupon-mad

Kind Regards TNA.Music

I sent a letter to my MP (Southend East) as I am in the same position and got a rather useless reply.  Dud by name...
Link to my thread: forums dot pepipoo dot com/index.php?showtopic=133273

D_P_Dance

Please let's not have that article posted in every VCS thread

Why on earth not?   You can never have too much information.  Do try to think outside the box. 

Redx

TNA.Music said:

Coupon-mad said:

Someone has just posted a defence about stopping at Southend Airport.  Copy & adapt that one.

@Coupon-mad - could you please give me the link to the defence? Thanks!

Try reading other airport Court claim threads ,  like those by valrossi and NearlyDone

Coupon-mad

I have no idea which one it was (I read too many at silly o'clock) and thought you would just search the forum for Southend.

TNA.Music

Guys, many thanks for the help so far. Here is my defence so please make an effort to review it and let me have your comment.

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper but not the driver in this case, was using London Southend Airport access roads on the material date.

 No Keeper Liability

3. The Defendant is the keeper of the vehicle and the driver has not been evidenced on any occasion.  The Defendant denies any liability for the claim.

4. The Claimant’s letter dated XX/XX/2019 states that “we will pursue you the Keeper on the reasonable assumption you were the driver” despite the explicit statement in Defendant’s appeal that Defendant was not the driver.

5. There is no presumption in law that the keeper was the driver and the keeper is not obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. This was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by the POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade, when explaining the POFA 2012 principles of 'keeper liability' as set out in Schedule 4.

6. The land where the alleged contravention was committed is covered by statutory bylaws (in this case The London Southend Airport Byelaws 1997) and this makes it not “relevant land” covered under PoFA 2012 and so is specifically excluded from “keeper liability”. Therefore, the Claimant can only hold the driver liable for the charges and not the keeper.

7. 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.

 No Contract Exists

8. The Claimant’s claim is for breach of contract, “namely stopping in a restricted bus stop / stand.” as defined by signage.

9. 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. 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.

10. 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

11. 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.

12. The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as “a zone where stopping is prohibited” at all times.  The signage is therefore prohibitive in nature and does not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as parking).  In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.

13. This was reflected in the “PCM vs Bull” case, where Defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

14. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.

 No Cause of Action

15. The Particulars of Claim state that “At all materials times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.” 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.

16. Photos received from the claimant show the driver stopped for less than a minute (8 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.”

17. 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.

18. As 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.

KADOE Data

19. The Claimant has obtained the 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.

20. The Defendant has not had sight of the VCS KADOE contract however, a sample contract is available on the DVLA website.

21. According to the sample contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”.

22. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator and a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and according to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued to the Defendant, operates in accordance with their Code of Practice.

23. The IPC Code of Practice (Sixth Edition that was in force at the time of the event) Clause 15.1 states that a ‘grace’ period should be allowed.  According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than one minute. Thus, a grace period was not observed and therefore the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, and therefore in breach of the sample contract that exists between them and the DVLA. The Claimant has obtained Keeper details under the false pretences.

24. Additionally and 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…”

25. 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.

26. 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.”

Double Recovery

31. The claim includes an additional £60 of “contractual costs”, also referred to as “Debt collection costs”.  No calculation or further justification/explanation is given.  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'

32. Additionally, 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.

33. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters.  It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £100 “parking charge” covers the costs of the debt recovery administration and letters.

34. Schedule 4, Para 4(5) of PoFA 2012 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.

Abuse of Process

35. The Defendant is of the view that this Claimant knew or should have known that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the POFA 2012 and the CRA 2015, and should be considered an abuse of process.

36. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number F2QZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated: ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

37. The Claimant contested the Judge’s decision in a N244 application, but the added £60 was still disallowed on 30th Oct 2019.  District Judge Jones-Evans stated that even in cases parking firms win, he never allows the £60 add on. The Judge said that a contract formed by signage is a deemed contract, which the motorist does not have the opportunity to negotiate. That, and the fact that there is no specified sum on the signage, means that the extra £60 cannot possibly be recoverable. He said that the £60 was clearly a penalty, and an abuse of process. The considered sum in that case was reduced to £100 with a full case hearing to follow, but the £60 would not be awarded under any circumstances.

38. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T - Britannia Parking -v- Mr C and another the courts went further in a landmark judgment in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes QC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire.

39. Similarly, in December 2019, Deputy District Judge Joseph sitting at Warwick County Court summarily struck out multiple parking ticket claims from various firms all due to the adding of false £60 costs to a £100 parking charge, that already indisputably (in law and case law) includes those costs.

40. The Defendant is of the opinion that the Claimant has knowingly submit an inflated claim including an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover, and this should be considered an abuse of process.  The court is invited to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

41. In the event that this claim is not summarily struck out for the same reasons as the Judges cited above, then due to this Claimant knowingly proceeding with a claim that amounts to an abuse of process, full costs will be sought by the Defendant at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Summary

42. 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.

Coupon-mad

I would get rid of #9 because they can offer a contract, but replace it with the usual defence point about no landowner authority.  

I am concerned not to see anything about VCS v Crutchley and VCS v Ward, or Ransomes which is in the best Airport 'stopping defence' cases I've read.

And this (onwards, the whole lot) is not the latest version about abuse of process, which no longer mentions much if anything about Caernarfon:

Abuse of Process

TNA.Music

@Coupon-mad, finally found @valrossi defence - Thank you both! 
Do I post all 52 points in my thread after the amendment or only amended points? 

TNA.Music

@Coupon-mad and @valrossi  Thank you both for your hard work and provided help and inspiration so far. Here is my latest and hopefully final defence - must submit it on Monday coming. Please have a look and let me have your comments.

DEFENCE

1.              The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that the Driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement, whether express, implied, or by conduct, to pay a ‘parking charge’ to the Claimant. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was the Keeper, they were not the Driver of the vehicle at the time. Further, the mandatory requirements to establish 'Keeper liability' have not been met and the Defendant is not liable in law.

Double Recovery, Abuse of Process & No Cause of Action

2.              In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme. However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £160. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis case (‘Beavis Case’).

3.              The global sum claimed is unconscionable and it was not shown in large lettering on any consumer signs, and it is averred that the charge offends against Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’), where s71(2) creates a duty on the Court to consider the fairness of a consumer contract. The court’s attention is drawn (but not limited to) parts 6, 10, 14 and 18 of the list of terms that are likely to be unfair.

4.              Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of costs. The sum exceeds the maximum amount which can be recovered from a registered Keeper, as prescribed in Schedule 4, Section 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). It is worth noting that in the Beavis Case where the Driver was known, the Supreme Court considered and referred more than once to the POFA.

5.              Claims pleaded on this basis by multiple parking firms have routinely been struck out ab initio in various County Court areas in England and Wales since 2019. Recent examples are appended to this defence; a February 2020 Order from District Judge Fay Wright, sitting at Skipton County Court (Appendix A) and a similar Order from Deputy District Judge Josephs, sitting at Warwick County Court (Appendix .

6.              Applications by AOS member parking firms to try to reach the usually low threshold to set aside multiple strike-out orders have been reviewed by more than one area Circuit Judge, including His Honour Iain Hughes QC, occasioning District Judge Grand at Southampton to hear submissions from a barrister on 11th November 2019. The court refused to set aside the Orders and, tellingly, no appeal was made.

7.              The Judge found that the claims - both trying to claim £160, with some ten or more similar cases stayed - represented an abuse of process that ‘tainted’ each claim. It was held to be not in the public interest for a court to let such claims proceed and merely disallow £60 in a case-by-case basis, thus restricting and reserving the proper application of the relevant consumer rights legislation only for those relatively few consumers who reach hearing stage. That Judgment is appended (Appendix C).

8.              On 27th February 2020, DJ Wright at Skipton followed suit, refusing to set aside the Court's multiple summary strike-out orders at an application hearing by Excel Parking Services Ltd, whose barrister failed in his arguments, just as the barrister for BW Legal did at Southampton three months earlier. The learned Judge's reasoning was the same (as can be seen by Appendix A which shows an example of her concisely but clearly worded continuing Orders affecting all parking firms who attempt to abuse the court process in this way). DJ Wright had sight of the Southampton transcript and dismissed as entirely without merit, Excel's witness statement arguments that to strike out these inflated claims was 'draconian', although she stopped short of allowing the Defendants (six, of whom two appeared in person for this application hearing) to describe the conduct as fraudulent.

9.              The CCBC and/or the allocated Court Judge is invited to read the Appendices at the earliest opportunity. The Defendant avers that parking firm claims which add a duplicitous ‘costs’ sum to the parking charge are now easily identified to be unlawful. Such claims are against the public interest, requiring no further assessment, and listing such cases for trial should be avoided. The Court is invited to exercise its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 to strike out this claim, which is entirely tainted by abuse of process and breaches of the CRA.

10.           Should this claim continue, the Claimant will no doubt try to mislead the court by pointing to their Trade Association ‘ATA’ Code of Practice (‘CoP’) that now includes a hastily added clause 'allowing' added costs/damages. The Defendant points out that the CoP is a self-serving document, written in the parking firms’ interests. Further, the ‘admin fee’ model was reportedly invented by a member of the British Parking Association Board, Gary Osner, whose previous firm, Roxburghe (UK) Limited, folded after being declared ‘unfit’ by the Office of Fair Trading who refused to renew their consumer credit licence due to ‘unfair and misleading’ business practices. Mr Osner states in an article that has been in the public domain since 2018: ''I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all.''

11.           The two competing ‘race to the bottom’ ATAs have engineered a veil of legitimacy to protect this industry for too long. They are not regulators and have failed consumers so badly, that Parliament is currently working on replacing them with a new CoP overseen by the Secretary of State, following the enactment of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019. Many courts have now recognised that a predatory parking firm Claimant using unfair and predatory business practices and inflating their claims with false ‘admin fees’, is not the ‘innocent party’ in a dispute. In stark contrast to the BPA Board member’s mind-set, the will of Parliament as set out in the new 2019 Act is very much consumer-focussed, aiming for: ''good practice...in the operation or management of private parking facilities as appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable having regard to the interests of persons using such facilities.''

12.           In the alternative, the defence is prejudiced and the court is invited to note that, contrary to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, the Letter Before Claim omitted evidence of any breach and failed to append the wording of the sign or consumer notice. Further, the Particulars of Claim are embarrassing and incoherent, lacking specificity re the location of the event and status of the contracting parties and failing to detail any conduct or liability that could give rise to a cause of action. There is insufficient detail to ascertain the nature, basis and facts of the case but the sum claimed includes unrecoverable costs/damages and is clearly an abuse of process.

13.           The court is invited to note that the Beavis Case would not have passed had it been pleaded in damages by ParkingEye, and the penalty rule applies to charges that are penal or unconscionable in their construction. The Supreme Court held at [14] ‘‘where a contract contains an obligation on one party to perform an act, and also provides that, if he does not perform it, he will pay the other party a specified sum of money, the obligation to pay the specified sum is a secondary obligation which is capable of being a penalty.’’ And at [99] ‘‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged.’’

14.           Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 parking charge which included all operational costs and was constructed in such a way and offered on such ‘brief and clear’ signs with terms set in the interests of the landowner, that they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being struck out as penal and unrecoverable. The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis Case facts and pleadings set a high bar that other claims fail to reach. Unusually for this industry, it is worth noting that ParkingEye do not add false ‘debt letter costs/damages’ to their parking charges and as a consequence, their own claims have escaped any reports of being summarily struck out.

15.           This Claimant has failed to plead their case, or to set out their terms or construct their contractual charges in the same way as in Beavis Case and the penalty rule remains firmly engaged. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish Drivers or to present a motorist with concealed pitfalls or traps, or to claim an unconscionable total sum.

16.           Should this poorly pleaded claim not be summarily struck out for any or all of the reasons stated above, the Defendant sets out this defence as clearly as possible in the circumstances, insofar as the facts below are known.

17.           The Defendant is not the only Driver of this vehicle and the Defendant was not the Driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention. Additionally, and as it can be seen from the Claimant’s photographic evidence, it was dark, street lighting was poor and it was raining at the time of the contravention.

18.           The Claimant’s claim is for the breach of contract, ‘namely stopping in a restricted bus stop / stand’ as defined by the ‘clearly displayed’ signage. It is not accepted that the location of the contravention included either the prominent signs giving ‘adequate notice’ of the onerous parking charge nor the prominent sign for ‘no stopping’ nor the prominent sign for ‘bus stop’.

19.           Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map, it can be seen from the Claimant’s photographic evidence and Google Street photographs, that the signs are positioned in such a way as to create an ‘entrapment zone’ where signage is not clearly visible. The road where the car was photographed as stopped has not a single ‘no stopping’ sign facing the drivers in either direction. Additionally, there is no a single ‘bus stop’ sign facing the drivers anywhere before or at the alleged bus stop. The Claimant is put to strict proof to contrary.

20.           The Claimant’s case is that the area is intended as ‘a zone where stopping is prohibited’ at all times. The signage is therefore prohibitive in nature and does not communicate any offer of consideration (ie: such as parking). In the absence of any consideration no contract exists.

21.           This was reflected in the PCM vs Bull case, where Defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.

22.           The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for a breach of contract, however not at any point in material time was any contract agreed.