county claim form vehicle control services ltd

merits28

hi all, I have just read through the claimants witness and it states the claimant has not been provided with a copy of the defendant’s defence and as so are unable to directly address any allegations contained therein and that they have emailed the court requesting for a copy of my defence and still awaiting response. Is shocking because I sent a copy of my defence to CCBC and VCS. So I don’t know what they are upto. 

Jenni_D

Did you send to both in the same email?

Does your CCBC file MCOL claim history show that the defence has been lodged?

If they have submitted a WS then they're being disingenuous ... they won't have known whether or not to send one (or otherwise file for a default judgment of an undefended claim) if they didn't know your defence had been filed.

Edit: thanks Redx ... I couldn't remember the correct terminology

Redx

The CCBC sent your defence to WS after it was logged by the CCBC, it may say so in your MCOL claim history if you look

VCS , received it , sent their DQ to you and to the CCBC and indicated that they were proceeding

So I don't believe that they didn't receive it , more likely that they mislaid it , admin error by VCS , Jake and his team !!

It's known as picnic !! Lol. 😜😜😜

merits28

Of course my defence was received by CCBC on 6th April and it is showing on my money claim online claim status. So I will just believe what Redx  said and move on with my witness statements I am currently trying to put together. Thanks all

KeithP

After receiving your Defence, the Claimant needed to indicate to the Court that they wished to proceed. 
The CCBC would not have sent you a Directions Questionnaire, without that confirmation from the Claimant.

For the Claimant to say that they wished to continue the Claim without having seen the Defence, must be seen as careless in the extreme.

To then go on and write a Witness Statement without sight of the Defence beggars belief.

Truly laughable.

merits28

Claim No; Name; (Defendant) Hearing Date:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

 

Between

VCS

(Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

<NAME

(Defendants)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: <CLAIM #>

 

Between

VCS

(Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

<NAME>

 (Defendant)

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

 

 

1. I am <NAME> of <ADDRESS>, and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge. 

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

SIGNAGE:

3.The approach to the entrance of the car park is by turning sharply left from Eyre Street, across a busy pedestrian walkway and cycleway (exhibit XX- 01). There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible, and would also block the pedestrian and cycle crossing. The only safe way to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering the car park.

4.  The sign age at the entrance to the car park is especially unclear ” as it is situated on the left hand

side at an angle and can not be seen from the inside of a vehicle.

The photograph’s that the claimant has provided are taken from a pedestrian who is standing at the

other side of the road ,In any case the signage is inadequate as it is so poorly sited and cannot be really

be said it is brought to the attention of the drivers of vehicles entering the site.  the signs were obscured by a tree. (exhibit XX-02)

 

SEQUENCE OF EVENT

5.on that day I parked as me and my 3 children and a friend who came to visit from Africa went for shopping at the moor markets and while were going around she took ill and started vomiting and having episodes due to long term chronic health condition. The sick passenger needed painkillers and she was slow moving , as this was during covid 19 and I was pregnant and was also diagnose with over-active thyroid ( graves disease) I was on medications including steroids . MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters (exhibit XX-03) Also one of my 3 young daughters has sickle cell and on medications. My daughters hospital letters and medications ( exhibit XX-04)

The passenger has unfortunately pass away due to covid .

The Beavis case is against this claim

6.This situation can be fully distinguished from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67, where the Supreme Court found that whilst the £85 was not (and was not pleaded as) a sum in the nature of damages or loss, ParkingEye had a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing the charge where motorists overstay, in order to deter motorists from occupying spaces beyond the time paid for and thus ensure further income for the landowner, by allowing other motorists to occupy the space. The Court concluded that the £85.00 charge was not out of proportion to the legitimate interest (in that case, based upon the facts and clear signs) and therefore the clause was not a penalty clause.

7. However, there is no such legitimate interest where the landowner is not disadvantaged by the motorists’ stay, as in this case where I parked in a manner later approved of by the Claimant (as per paragraph 9). As such, I take the point that the parking charge in my case is a penalty, and unenforceable. The absence or concealment of signage and varying acceptability of parking areas are precisely the sorts of 'concealed pitfall or trap' and unsupported penalty that the Supreme Court considered in deciding what constitutes an unconscionable parking charge.

8. Even taken as an extreme close-up, with no proof as to its visibility from the parking area, the sign that the Claimant has presented as evidence has vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, so as for it not to allow the opportunity for anyone to become acquainted with its terms. As such, as specifically outlined in Example 10 of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the signage constitutes an unfair customer notice, and, pursuant to s62 of the same act, any terms would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law. Consequently, it is my position that, even if I had seen signage of the sort presented by the Claimant – which I didn’t as it was not present – no contract to pay an onerous penalty would have been seen, known or agreed.

Abuse of process – the quantum

9. In addition to the disputed Parking Charge Notice claim amount of £100, the Claimant has added a sum of £60 that is disingenuously described variously as 'debt collection costs', ‘additional charges levied to cover the cost of recovery’, ‘additional administration costs’, ‘debt recovery costs’, ‘initial legal costs’ and ‘recovery costs’. The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process as was found by District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) in Excel vs Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, a similar case in which £60 had been added to a parking charge, heard in July 2020 (the transcript of which is exhibit XX-04). The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'. Leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.

14. After hearing this ‘test case’, which followed numerous Judges repeatedly disallowing the £60 sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims, Judge Jackson at the Bradford County Court went into significant detail before concluding that parking operators (such as the Claimant in this case) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Others, like Judge Hickinbottom of the same court area, have since echoed Judge Jackson’s words and struck out dozens of cases. Judge Hickinbottom recently stated ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''. 

Redacted Landowner Contract

15. The Claimant has appended a redacted ‘Customer License Agreement’ which has little or no probative value and which offends against the rules of evidence. The ‘Client’ signatory of the ‘Agreement’ could be anyone, even a stranger to the land, and the Claimant provides no evidence that the ‘Client’ is the landowner.

16. It is also clear that the document has not been signed by two Directors, nor by one Director in the presence of attesting witnesses, and as such cannot – according to the Companies Act – be considered a validly executed contract. The network of contracts are key in these cases, since the parking charges are argued to be contractual and the authority to sue visitors must flow from the landowner, not an agent.

17. In the recent Court of Appeal case of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 907 the Court of Appeal are now clear that most redactions are improper where the Court are being asked to interpret the contract. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/907.html

Ref. paras 74 & 75 ''...The document must in all normal circumstances be placed before the court as a whole. Seldom, if ever, can it be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality...confidentiality alone cannot be good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision...''

My fixed witness costs – ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

18. Upon confirmation that attendance at any hearing would result in a loss of leave, I will ask for my fixed witness costs of £95 as specified by CPR Practice Direction 27, 7.3(1), and due under CPR 27.14(2)(e).

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Witness’ signature:

<SIGN HERE>

 

 

Date:

<DATE>

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 

Claim No.: <CLAIM #>

 

Between

<PPC>

(Claimant) 

 

- and -  

 

<NAME>

 (Defendant)

 

 

EXHIBITS OF DEFENDANT

 

 

XX-01 One line description

XX-02 One line description.

XX-03 One line description.

XX-04 Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court.

 

 

These are the exhibits marked XX-01 to XX-NN referenced in the witness statement, signed <NAME>, Defendant:

 

 

<SIGN HERE>

Date: <DATE>

Exhibit XX-01

There are double yellow lines to this junction where stopping would be impossible

Exhibit XX-02

the signs were obscured by a tree. (exhibit XX-02)

Exhibit XX-03 :MY steroids treatment card and steroids emergency card with endocrinology letters

Exhibit XX-04: MY DAUGHTERS HOSPITAL LETTERS AND MEDICATIONS

Exhibit XX- 05:

Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court.

 

XX-05 Schedule of costs

DEFENDANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

Ordinary Costs

Loss of leave through attendance at court hearing:

£95.00

Signed <NAME>, Defendant:

 

 

 

 

<SIGN HERE>

Date: <DATE>

 

merits28

hello everyone , this is the witness statement i have come up with so far,  please let me know if to add or remove anything. thank you

Coupon-mad

and cannot be really be said

Two be or not two be, that is the question?

merits28

Coupon-mad said:

and cannot be really be said

Two be or not two be, that is the question?

hello Coupon-mad, please i don't understand what you are trying to say , sorry

merits28

merits28 said:

Coupon-mad said:

and cannot be really be said

Two be or not two be, that is the question?

hello Coupon-mad, please i don't understand what you are trying to say , sorry

Lol, i get you now, i wrote be twice. i will correct that, please let me know to add or remove anything, this has taken all day to put together