VCS court defence check [Now WS check please]

samc999

Hi All,

I'm seeking advice on my current defence against VCS before sending it off. Have already acknowledged and now about 1 week left to submit the defence. 

The link below shows where I entered Egerton Close, Sheffield 

I tried to post a URL link on street view but apparently I'm not allowed... 

I parked there as I was only stopping for about half an hour and did not see the only two inward facing signs upon entering in the area. I'm not sure if it's relevant to the defence but VCS disclosed a photograph in the SAR of another sign which I would never see between the entrance and where I parked. 

Thanks

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.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.   

4.      On the alleged date the contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30. The Defendant was unable to see either of the two unlit parking notices on the brick pillars during hours of darkness. These signs are facing disadvantageously inwards away from the driver’s line of sight. The Defendant therefore questions why these signs would not have been placed facing forwards within the driver’s natural sight where they would be in full view upon entering. The Defendant alleges a vehicle was also parked across the left hand pillar and so this sign would not have been visible upon entering in any case. The Defendant therefore entered on the right hand side of the lane and alleges this sign would also not be visible in any case, since it was outside the Defendants line of sight with respect to vehicle placement. There are no further signs located between those placed at the entrance pillars and the space in which the Defendants vehicle was parked. In the absence of visible signage, the Defendant therefore assumed the vehicle to parked without subject to restriction.

5.  The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement......

samc999

google.com/maps/@53.3770782,-1.4781499,3a,30y,298.73h,85.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDAKahezFklz-dd58mukkIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Fruitcake

Use the word avers, not alleges.

That link doesn't work. If you want to show us the location, tell us the physical address.

There is too much detail about what the driver did and didn't see. You have told the world that you knew about the signs. Either you knew they were there or you did not. 
You should state that either the defendant didn't see any signs or there were no signs visible, or whatever is appropriate, and therefore incapable of forming a contract with the driver.
Save the evidence for later in the process at WS stage.

Le_Kirk

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.
3.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention.   
4 3.    On the date that the alleged contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30............

Why not just write one sentence?  Also pay heed to what @Fruitcake wrote, a defence is a short series of technical and legal arguments, then you can leave the story for the witness statement.

KeithP

Here's a GSV image - https://goo.gl/maps/KwS1nVyekGsDSQnu7

You can just about make out the signs on both the brick pillars - neither facing the direction of travel.

Another view of the left-hand entrance sign - https://goo.gl/maps/3JwcXD9E6mR3bcscA

samc999

Thanks for all the input so far. I've followed all suggestions but I am left with a rather short statement, perhaps this is fine though? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      On the alleged date the contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30. There were no visible signs in the direction of travel as the Defendant entered from Egerton Street. In the absence of visible signage Vehicle Control Services are incapable of forming a contract with the driver. There is, therefore, no cause of action, and no possibility of transferring a non-existent liability to me as the Registered Keeper.

samc999

I decided to state there were no signs as this seemed a stronger stance than admitting there were signs but the driver did not see them upon entering. 

Le_Kirk

samc999 said:

Thanks for all the input so far. I've followed all suggestions but I am left with a rather short statement, perhaps this is fine though? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      On the alleged date the contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30. There were no visible signs in the direction of travel as the Defendant entered from Egerton Street. In the absence of visible signage Vehicle Control Services are incapable of forming a contract with the driver. There is, therefore, no cause of action, and no possibility of transferring a non-existent liability to me as the Registered Keeper.

Is the date alleged or is it fact?  If it is fact then you need to change the para # 3to read: -

3.      On the alleged date the alleged contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30.

I am sure I made this correction for you up thread.

samc999

Sorry I overlooked that amendment in the last line. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.      On the date the alleged contravention occurred, the Defendant entered Egerton Close during the hours of darkness at approximately 18:30. There were no visible signs in the direction of travel as the Defendant entered from Egerton Street. In the absence of visible signage Vehicle Control Services are incapable of forming a contract with the driver. There is, therefore, no cause of action, and no possibility of transferring a non-existent liability to me as the Registered Keeper.

nosferatu1001

The final line is superfluous. They do not need to transfer any liability, as you are an admitted driver

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.