VCS Court Claim - Parked without permit

Urb14

Hi guys,

I've been served by VCS (again)
County Claim form signed by Jake

Car parked without permit

Happened over 2 years ago.

Done the AOS and got 2weeks to submit my defence

Using the suggested template defence as posted by coupon-mad;

- For #2 and #3 I will admit to being the driver and was unloading at the time (do i need to give reason?)

- Going to argue usual stuff regarding poor and inadequate signage 

- The private land my car was parked on had no marked bays. Instead there were double yellow lines running across the circumference of the land which should have been mentioned in the signage. When I saw the double yellow lines I assumed it is public land which would be a matter for the council to deal with

- Will also mention the red windscreen notice that says its 'not a parking charge notice', even though the PoC say it is

- Contract with landowner seems to check out so not gonna mention it

 

Please let me know what you think of my point about the double yellow lines, is it worth including? Any other defences I can throw at them? 

How much detail should I go into for the defence, more = better?

Also can I not just submit the defence on MCOL instead of emailing to CCBAQ? 

Thanks in advance guys!

Redx

I think you can add in Jopson

the windscreen notice is not a NTD according to the DVLA

definitely DO NOT fill in the defence on the MCOL website, Bargepole told everyone why several years ago, which is why they now allow email (preferably as a PDF) , even more so now judges are working from home or remote locations which require them to have proper documentation, even if its a pdf or a docx

details are for the WS

estoppel should also feature as Jake should be issuing all claims to you in one go, not time after time, or maybe its abuse of process ?

Abuse of Process

Courts and the civil justice system are there to:

    provide a final method for members of society to resolve disputes between themselves, and
    completely and finally resolve all matters in dispute between them. See section 49(2) of the Senior Courts Act.

Abuse of process is an improper use of judicial process: the process made available to resolve disputes by courts.
Types of Abuse of Process

Abuses of process:

    advance frivolous or vexatious legal claims
    puts defendants to expense, harassment or commercial prejudice by starting or continuing vexatious or malicious claims, and/or
    use a court's procedures for a purpose or in a way significantly different from their primary purpose, which is to resolve disputes finally and completely

D_P_Dance

https://www.google.com/search?q=jopson+v+homeguard&oq=jopson+v+homeguard&aqs=chrome..69i57.11823j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Urb14

Thanks Redx, will reference Jopson. Guess it could also be abuse of process, got nothing to lose by including it!
Issue date 7/01/21
AOS 15/01/21

KeithP

Urb14 said:

Issue date 7/01/21
AOS 15/01/21

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Coupon-mad

Urb14 said:

Thanks Redx, will reference Jopson. Guess it could also be abuse of process, got nothing to lose by including it!

Eh?  We don't use that stupid, over-used and misunderstood phrase any more (honestly I get fed up with people thinking it means something it doesn't). 

I assume you mean the double recovery element of adding false costs.  That's already in the template defence.

Urb14

Hi guys please let me know what you think of my defence.
After reading through the case notes I dont think Jopson would apply as I was not a resident of the land where the PCN was given, regardless of the fact that I was unloading.
I was looking into collateral estopel and came across this information:
'The application of the collateral estoppel doctrine promotes the speedy administration of justice by preventing the continuous, duplicative litigation of fruitless claims when relitigation of them is unlikely to change the original decision made regarding them.'
With this in mind I don't believe featuring estopell would work in my favour as I lost the previous case in court.
Correct me if I'm wrong though! 
I am keeping the template defence exactly the same after #7, to save space I just didn't include it on here.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The vehicle had stopped on land which had no marked bays and instead there were double yellow lines running across the circumference of the land area. It was parked there for the purpose of unloading, as is permissible when stopped on yellow lines. These lines were misleading as they led one to believe that the vehicle had stopped on public land managed by the council.

4. It is denied that any contravention or breach of terms and conditions occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge by the signage.

5. It is denied that the Claimant’s signs constitute a fair or relevant contract. The terms and conditions of the sign, or the acceptance of a liability, are not synonymous with a contract. The wording on the signs is ambiguous, the visual layout of the signs is poor and there is a lack of sufficient signage placed on the land where the PCN was issued.

6. It is denied that the Claimant fulfilled its requirements to erect suitable entrance signs in accordance with Schedule 1 of the IPC’s Code of Practice.

7. 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 parking charge notices.

8. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon.  Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant avers that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

Coupon-mad

After reading through the case notes I don't think Jopson would apply as I was not a resident of the land where the PCN was given, regardless of the fact that I was unloading.

It does, however, distinguish between unloading and parking.

I was looking into collateral estopel and came across this information:
'The application of the collateral estoppel doctrine promotes the speedy administration of justice by preventing the continuous, duplicative litigation of fruitless claims when relitigation of them is unlikely to change the original decision made regarding them.'
With this in mind I don't believe featuring estopell would work in my favour as I lost the previous case in court.
Correct me if I'm wrong though! 

No probably drop that idea!

Your defence looks fine, but surely this is already lower down in the template:

7. 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 parking charge notices.

Urb14

I made a small amendent to #3 by making mention of Jopson. Would this be sufficient, I can always go into more detail at WS stage? 

3. The vehicle had stopped on land which had no marked bays and instead there were double yellow lines running across the circumference of the land area. It had stopped for the purpose of unloading, as is permissible when on double yellow lines. These lines were misleading as they led one to believe that the vehicle had stopped on public land managed by the council. Also, as was the case in Jopson vs Homeguard (2016), it would be important to draw a distinction between stopping for a short time to enable unloading, and parking in the sense of leaving the car for some significant duration of time.

Your defence looks fine, but surely this is already lower down in the template:

7. 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 parking charge notices.

You're right! #7 removed

Le_Kirk

running across the circumference of the land area

Small point but you cannot run across the circumference, you would: -

running across around the circumference of the land area