Completed Case Against VCS Ltd

Nomad24

Redx said:

plus decide if defending as keeper ( using POFA ) , keeper and driver  ( no POFA ) or Driver unknown because .......

I see what you mean - I wasn't focusing on one but speaking about each vaguely. I hope that's been amended in the above!

Redx

Add to 2 stating that the driver details are unknown due to the event happening so long ago in an unremarkable date

If true , because you need to deflect the obvious question in court , were you the driver ? An answer must be truthful , so what would you honestly reply ?

Nomad24

Redx said:

An answer must be truthful , so what would you honestly reply ?

I honestly cannot remember who the driver could have been, not only was the date unremarkable. There wasn't a physical PCN placed on the vehicle at that car park. Had a PCN been issued onto the vehicle, this would have allowed the driver to be more identifiable.

Redx

Nomad24 said:

Redx said:

An answer must be truthful , so what would you honestly reply ?

I honestly cannot remember who the driver could have been, not only was the date unremarkable. There wasn't a physical PCN placed on the vehicle at that car park. Had a PCN been issued onto the vehicle, this would have allowed the driver to be more identifiable.

Then add an extra line to 2 saying something like what you and I said then , there are other Court claim threads you can crib from to get the wording right

KeithP

Nomad24 said:

• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/08/2021 at 01:20:11

The you are right with your Defence filing deadline...

KeithP said:

...then as you say, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 28th September 2021 to file your Defence.

But if you are planning on filing it today then that is of no consequence. 

Nomad24

Thanks again!!

Rewritten:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. Whilst it is possible that the Defendant could have been the driver of the vehicle in question, the alleged contravention occurred 3 years and 5 months ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect the Defendant to recall their whereabouts on an unremarkable date so long ago, or even recall who would have been driving on said date, in a vehicle that had multiple drivers. This was further complicated by no physical PCN (Parking Charge Notice) being issued at the location. Had a physical PCN been issued onto the vehicle, this would have allowed the driver to be more identifiable.

3.  During the periods of 2015-2018 the drivers of the vehicle frequented Fernandez Grillhouse (7 High St, Loughborough LE11 2PY) which had customer parking. The customer car park was located to the right side of the restaurant along a side street, off the main road. Upon entering the side street, there was a narrow path that opened to a larger area of land. This open land did not have clearly defined lines, signage or gates to suggest - as later realised - the sections belonged to different establishments.

4. Upon parking, none of the drivers recall a PCN being served onsite to the vehicle, which assured the drivers of the vehicle that they had parked in the right customer car park. The land simply had A5 sized signs sparsely distributed along one wall. The details of the sign are unknown as the print was indistinguishable upon parking. The Claimant alleges the driver of the vehicle breached the terms and conditions of the land and is therefore responsible for a PCN. The breach is described as "Parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit" on Service Yard for 8-13 High Street, Loughborough, LE11 2PY. 

4. The Defendant became aware of the alleged contravention 2 years and 7 months later, in the form of a ‘Demand for Payment’ letter issued by the Claimant. Prior to the ‘Demand for Payment’ letter which alleges a sum of £160 owed, there was no ‘Notice to Keeper’ in the 2 years and 7 months, which completely violates the condition set out in Sch4, Section 6(1b) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the POFA’). 

5. The ‘Demand for Payment’ correspondence abruptly sent 2 years and 7 months later without accurately following the due diligence outlined in Sch4 of the POFA, is suggestive of an attempt to scare the Defendant into payment while in violation of proper procedure. The ‘Demand for Payment’ was followed by a ‘Final Demand’ letter, ‘Letter Before Claim’ and a ‘Notification of Instruction’; each increasing in its hostility. While none of these letters satisfied the provisions outlined in Sch4, Section 9 of the POFA. Therefore, the Defendant’s stance is that liability is not held due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with Schedule 4 of the POFA.

Nomad24

KeithP said:

The you are right with your Defence filing deadline...

Cheers

Absolutely fantastic! Thank you a thousand times over peeps. 

Formatting documents to send off! Will keep you all posted!!!!

Redx

Nomad24 said:

KeithP said:

The you are right with your Defence filing deadline...

Cheers

Absolutely fantastic! Thank you a thousand times over peeps. 

Formatting documents to send off! Will keep you all posted!!!!

Email to the ccbcaq email address , and add the claimants lawyer ( or Claimant if no lawyer ) to the email , so both get a copy of the Defence pdf , plus I would not email after 4pm , so tomorrow between 9 and 4

Nomad24

Redx said:

Email to the ccbcaq email address , and add the claimants lawyer ( or Claimant if no lawyer ) to the email , so both get a copy of the Defence pdf , plus I would not email after 4pm , so tomorrow between 9 and 4

Noted! Early tomorrow it is. Cheers 

Coupon-mad

Hang on, what about the vital point about cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson?! Search the forum.