Claim Form - VCS / ELMS

ignavia

Hello!

I'm helping a friend who is the RK for 2 VCS PCNs. The RK received NTKs issued on 14/03/2018 and 15/03/2018 relating to parking events on 12/02/2018 and 18/02/2018, both overstays.

The RK has now received a County Court Claim Form issued on 01/04/2021, and has completed online Acknowledgement of Service after 4pm on 06/04/2021, so, effectively 07/04/2021.

Some questions...

As this Claim Form relates only to the first PCN, should the RK expect another County Court Claim Form for the other?

Can the RK insist on an in-person hearing?

Is this defence OK?

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. It is not known who was the driver at the time.

3. This parking charge was first brought to the Defendant's attention on 17/03/2018, 4 weeks afterwards. Thus the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Despite this, the Defendant has been harrassed over a period of three years by the Claimant, with a stream of bullying, threatening letters. The Defendant has reminded the Claimant, at every opportunity, that the Registered Keeper has no liability, but the Claimant has persisted in pursuing their baseless claim.

KeithP

ignavia said:

The RK has now received a County Court Claim Form issued on 01/04/2021, and has completed online Acknowledgement of Service after 4pm on 06/04/2021, so, effectively 07/04/2021.

With a Claim Issue Date of 1st April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 4th May 2021 to file your Defence.

That's four 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.

beamerguy

ELMS ???  So VCS want to lose again ?

There are some amazing stories on here about Elms if you want a good laugh ?

SayNoToPCN

If another court claim comes, then you use henderson v henderson cause of action estoppel and say at min the claim should be consolildated

How many possible drivers was it? Expect them, if theyre competent, to at least ask that. 

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP.  Are they asking for unlawful amounts?  Have you read this?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Le_Kirk

That defence, paragraph 3, tells the judge nothing about the circumstances of the claim; what type of car park it is for example, why the PCN was issued (failure to pay, failure to display a permit, overstay).  Without writing war and peace you have to set the scene; the defence is supposed to refute the POC.  Points about the number of letters the RK has received are not defence points.

ignavia

Thanks for your helpful comments. We'll have another go at the defence in the next few days, and repost.

ignavia

Yes, this is a "£60 added" claim.

Here are the revised paras 2 & 3:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant's insurance policy has 2 named drivers, and other people may also drive the Defendant's vehicle, subject to permission and holding their own insurance. The Claimant first made contact more than 30 days after the alleged event. Due to this delay and the fact that no Parking Charge Notice was applied on the day, it is not known who the driver was and the balance of probabilities is not tipped in favour of the Claimant. The Defendant cannot be held liable as registered keeper, due to the Claimant not complying with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

3. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contractual breach. The Particulars of Claim allege the Defendant's vehicle was parked for longer than the period permitted, but neither specify the time the vehicle was parked, nor the contractual term detailing the period permitted. The Particulars of Claim incorrectly assert that the terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance. The entrance is a busy, 4 way, traffic light controlled junction with pedestrian crossings. There is no commercial signage in this safety critical area. It is perfectly possible to enter, park and leave the car park without ever passing by a sign. Such signs as exist are placed high on poles and use such small print as to be illegible from ground level. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any contract was entered into, that a contravention occurred and any evidence they hold as to which driver parked on that day and how they contend that they have a cause of action against the Defendant as registered keeper.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contractual breach.

Move that up to #2.

ignavia

Thanks for the suggestion. Revised paras 2 & 3:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant's insurance policy has 2 named drivers, and other people may also drive the Defendant's vehicle, subject to permission and holding their own insurance. The Claimant first made contact more than 30 days after the alleged event. Due to this delay and the fact that no Parking Charge Notice was applied on the day, it is not known who the driver was and the balance of probabilities is not tipped in favour of the Claimant. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant cannot be held liable as registered keeper, due to the Claimant not complying with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

3. The Particulars of Claim allege the Defendant's vehicle was parked for longer than the period permitted, but neither specify the time the vehicle was parked, nor the contractual term detailing the period permitted. The Particulars of Claim incorrectly assert that the terms and conditions are displayed at the entrance. The entrance is a busy, 4 way, traffic light controlled junction with pedestrian crossings. There is no commercial signage in this safety critical area. It is perfectly possible to enter, park and leave the car park without ever passing by a sign. Such signs as exist are placed high on poles and use such small print as to be illegible from ground level. The Claimant is put to strict proof that any contract was entered into, that a contravention occurred and any evidence they hold as to which driver parked on that day and how they contend that they have a cause of action against the Defendant as registered keeper.

If those seem OK, we'll submit the defence in the next few days.

Redx

I would put that quoted sentence after the first sentence , after denied

I would then renumber the rest into a new paragraph 3 , then renumber the second 3 to 4

Then renumber in the final complete draft , for continuity