VCS Liverpool Airport - LBC phase - stopping in prohibited zone

Doomtrooper

Good morning everyone,

Lately I am trying to get my head around WS phase. I am also sweeping through all VCS No stopping threads - soaking up all the knowledge possible.

I presume that VCS i going to rely their claim on case

Vcs ltd vs nick idle and VCS ltd vs Damien Ward  - that a breach caused by unforeseen circumstances is not a defence

I tried to find any WS which dealt  and most importantly - worked with this argument

Umkomaas

Vcs ltd vs nick idle and VCS ltd vs Damien Ward  - that a breach caused by unforeseen circumstances is not a defence

Which is where you need to be incorporating the new policy requirement on this point from the government backed Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.  Final CoP published on Monday of this week - check out the relevant paras and build into your WS. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

DisruptiveLad

VCS have broken the law, but they're taking YOU to court?

Doomtrooper

DisruptiveLad
It is strange isnt it, right?

I am about to submit defence this week. Here is the draft

1. It is admitted that Defendant was the recorded keeper xxxxx  on 01/04/2018

2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper claimant is the landowner

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

4. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

5. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

6. The Claimant's invoice was issued in early April 2018 and it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly four years and to claim 8% interest for that whole period.

In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

1. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, to CPR 27.14, and (b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance.  The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

KeithP

I've read back through your thread and cannot see that you have actually told us that you have received a County Court Claim.

Have you received a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.


Isn't the Defendant going to admit or deny being the driver?

Probably not as good idea to include those hyperlinks to consumeractiongroup.

Are your sure your paragraph 2 is appropriate? I don't recall seeing that before.

Because the airport is covered by byelaws, your paras 3 and 4 should refer to the driver rather than the Defendant. You do understand the POFA 'not relevant land' issue, don't you?

Will you be including all the rest of the template Defence when filing it?

Doomtrooper

Yes I will rely my defence on fact that I was a driver. Mistakenly I admitted I was driver when I appealed right after I received NtK. I know it was mistake but later on I have found this forum.

Calim court issued 21/01/22. AOS received on 26/01/22

I dont understand POFA 'not relevant land' issue. Whate does it mean exactly?

I will be including all the rest of template Defence.

KeithP

Doomtrooper said:

I dont understand POFA 'not relevant land' issue. Whate does it mean exactly?

In this context, POFA is all about transferring any driver's liability to the keeper.
Now that you have told us they already know who was driving, you no longer need to concern yourself with that.

Doomtrooper said:

Calim court issued 21/01/22. AOS received on 26/01/22

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week 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.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

D_P_Dance

VCS have broken the law,

Would this be of interest to Trading Standards and your MP?

DisruptiveLad

You need to report to www.actionfraud.police. 

Doomtrooper

Thanks for all suggestion. 
So what would be exact reason for reporting?