Claim Form received - VCS - WON - For the second time!

lyndonp59

I have drafted my defence using the latest template. Are there any comments or changes please?

• I have added the points Coupon Mad said I should mention in my post at the top of page 2.

• This a VCS case, I wasn't sure from the comments whether point 17 should be in, but the driver has never been declared and therfore I believe if VCS do not use poFA then they can only go after the driver(?)
• I added in point 19 about grace periods
  

• Point 29 is the original statement (with company number added) but to give contect to where I have inserted point 30.

-------

17.  The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

18.  On the day and time of the alleged contravention the bus lane on Ecclesall Road was in force and on street parking was prohibited thus causing heavy demand on the Berkley Precinct car park. The driver had to wait for a period of time before they could park in an allocated parking bay. The period of time the car was parked in an allocated bay did not exceed the maximum permitted time plus grace periods allowed as per the CoP.

The signs in the car park were above head height and of such a small font at that height extremely difficult to read to make out the terms and conditions.

19.  The IPC Code of Practice Second Edition (undated) which was in force in May 2015 states at Part B “Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators” Paragraph 15 drivers should be allowed a grace period on both entry and exit.

The Claimant does not specify or refer to any allowed grace periods in any signage, NTK or subsequent correspondence. This is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice to which they are bound.

20.  For a total of over 4 years the Claimant and their original solicitor BWlegal have not replied to the Defendant’s three letters which requested further details of the Claim and how the amount is calculated, all of which necessitated a response from either the Claimant or their solicitor.

This is in clear breach of the Practice Direction and unreasonable behaviour. It is not the Defendant’s responsibility to chase the Claimant for a response.

21.  The Defendant wrote to the Claimant asking on what legal authority the Claimant had to charge the additional £60 knowing it is an abuse of process. A reply was requested within 14 days, however, instead of a reply the court papers were served on the 14th day. Not only is this an abuse of process it is unreasonable behaviour and a particularly vexatious claim.

22.  It is noted the Claimant is claiming interest. In view of the lack of response to the Defendants letters for a total of over 4 years the interest should not be applicable as the lack of response by the Claimant has caused the delay in resolving this matter.

.
.
.
.

29.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the Landowner or Lessor of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Companies House lists their company number as 02498820) to issue private PCNs or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are/were, and whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to issue PCNs ‘on behalf of’ the landowner on an agency basis.

30.  On the Claimant’s internal “ANPR Appeals Review Form (IPC)” an employee of the Claimant has written in the Case Admin Notes section the following comment:-

“We don’t have contract to issue PCNs”

This brings into question the legitimacy of the Claim.

Coupon-mad

Looks good, except all paragrphs will need a number, including the single lie paragraphs above, or remove the gao and make them one paragraph at each point.

I think this is in the wrong place:

The signs in the car park were above head height and of such a small font at that height extremely difficult to read to make out the terms and conditions.

Move it to join something else in the template, which already talks about the unclear signs/no contract agreed.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

Looks good, except all paragrphs will need a number, including the single lie paragraphs above, or remove the gao and make them one paragraph at each point.

I think this is in the wrong place:

The signs in the car park were above head height and of such a small font at that height extremely difficult to read to make out the terms and conditions.

Move it to join somthing else in the template, which already talks about the unclear signs/no contract agreed.

Thank you for comments. I hadn't noticed the paragraph indents were removed when I copied it in. I have removed the gaps as you suggested.

I have merged the signage sentence about head height into the original paragraph 19 in the template - now paragraph 23. I think it reads better now.

Will this be OK now? Thanks.

One final question - does the statement in red at the end of template below need removing before sending with the judgement or is it just a reminder to add it in?

"Approved Judgment from Southampton Court is appended to show why claims such as this are being summarily struck out"

--------------------------------------

17.  The Defendant is not the only driver of this vehicle and the Particulars of Claim offer little to shed light on the alleged breach, which relates to an unremarkable date some time ago.  It is not established thus far, whether there was a single parking event, or whether the vehicle was caught by using unsynchronised timings and camera evidence to suggest a contravention.  A compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with section 8 or 9 (as the case may be) of the POFA.

18.  On the day and time of the alleged contravention the bus lane on Ecclesall Road was in force and on street parking was prohibited thus causing heavy demand on the Berkley Precinct car park. The driver had to wait for a period of time before they could park in an allocated parking bay. The period of time the car was parked in an allocated bay did not exceed the maximum permitted time plus grace periods allowed as per the CoP.

19.  The IPC Code of Practice Second Edition (undated) which was in force in May 2015 states at Part B “Operational Requirements Applicable to All Operators” Paragraph 15 drivers should be allowed a grace period on both entry and exit.
The Claimant does not specify or refer to any allowed grace periods in any signage, NTK or subsequent correspondence. This is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice to which they are bound.

20.  For a total of over 4 years the Claimant and their original solicitor BWlegal have not replied to the Defendant’s three letters which requested further details of the Claim and how the amount is calculated, all of which necessitated a response from either the Claimant or their solicitor.
     This is in clear breach of the Practice Direction and unreasonable behaviour. It is not the Defendant’s responsibility to chase the Claimant for a response.

21.  The Defendant wrote to the Claimant asking on what legal authority the Claimant had to charge the additional £60 knowing it is an abuse of process. A reply was requested within 14 days, however, instead of a reply the court papers were served on the 14th day. Not only is this an abuse of process it is unreasonable behaviour and a particularly vexatious claim.

22.  It is noted the Claimant is claiming interest. In view of the lack of response to the Defendants letters for a total of over 4 years the interest should not be applicable as the lack of response by the Claimant has caused the delay in resolving this matter.

23.  The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, were above head height, and being of a small font at such a height extremely difficult to read to make out the terms and conditions such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Schedule 2 of the CRA.  Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was agreed by the driver.

.
.
.
.

29.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence of a chain of authority flowing from the Landowner or Lessor of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this particular Claimant (Companies House lists their company number as 02498820) to issue private PCNs or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are/were, and whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to issue PCNs ‘on behalf of’ the landowner on an agency basis.

30.  On the Claimant’s internal “ANPR Appeals Review Form (IPC)” an employee of the Claimant has written in the Case Admin Notes section the following comment:-
     “We don’t have contract to issue PCNs”
     This brings into question the legitimacy of the Claim.

Coupon-mad

That's fine.  I'd leave that sentence in but make it not red!

gumgirl

lyndonp59 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Aren't they on Google streeview when you change the image date, top left?

Yes thanks, I can see them now as at Oct 2014 which is perfect for May 2015. I was originally looking on an Android tablet which doesn't have that timeline option bizarrley.

Streetview also goes inside the carpark as at Oct 2014 which is extremely useful! The signs are terrible when I view them now.

I feel a little happier I have some photo evidence now for the WS stage later. I now need to crack on and finish the Defence statement.

Hi lyndonp59 

I have just messaged you re photos of signs. 

Gum girl.

lyndonp59

gumgirl said:

Hi lyndonp59 

I have just messaged you re photos of signs. 

Gum girl.

I'd just like to say a very public thank you to Gum girl for the photos and also KeithP for suggesting it would be OK to PM her in the first place. I must say having now seen the signage in close up it is shocking. I cannot even see the penalty charge on it at all!

The photos are just in preparation for the WS, the Defence will be emailed off tomorrow once I get hold of my son to sign it.

lyndonp59

I sent off the Defence PDF to the email address CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk with the Claim no and Defence in the subject title as per the instructions on the post on the 23rd July (over a week ago) yet it still isn't showing on the Claim History. Still showing AoS as last transaction.

Is this normal or do I need to do contact them? Just a bit concerned it will miss the deadline.

Le_Kirk

When you sent it, did you receive any sort of auto acknowledgement of the receipt of the e-mail?  Sometimes CCBC can get a bit behind.  Check your SENT folder and make sure it went to that address (which is the correct one by the way).

lyndonp59

No, never got an email acknowledgement back. The address I copied in my post above was from the sent email.

Le_Kirk

I would be tempted to contact them and ask.  what is your deadline?