VCS/DCBL Defence help required

nfsu26

Hello all,

Firstly a thank you to all the contributors on the board who have helped people such as myself over the years.

I have received my N1 Claim form from DCBL regarding 4 PCNs dating from 2018 & 2019.

MCOL Dates:
Claim issued against me on 24/11/2021
AOS submitted on 08/12/2021
AOS received on 09/12/2021

Details of PCNs:
3 of the PCNs relate to residential parking whereby the T&Cs state that 'If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed'. I was loading at the time and the Tenant Management Company (of my flat not the building) had not yet provided me with the Permit. I have correspondence between myself & the tenant management company requesting a change of space & permit and also returning the permit at the end of my tenancy. There is no mention of parking in the tenancy agreement whatsoever. We asked for parking and this was provided at an extra cost on the rent however I do not have this in writing anymore. The car park is only accessible through a key-fob provided to residents.

My plan for these is to argue that due to my residency, a permit is not required and it is up to the Claimant to prove that one is.

The other PCN is related to the Berkeley Precinct - it used to be free for 2 hours and they quietly changed this. I stayed for under 2 hours so basing my argument around the signage. I have also sent a SAR to VCS and note that on this PCN - there are no images of any signs containing any of the T&Cs I was alleged to have breached.

Other interesting things to note:

• Two of the Residential PCNs are dated exactly the same
• I received a Letter before Claim previously directly from VCS in July 2020 regarding the 3 residential PCNs. This LBC did not follow any of the Pre-action protocols and I replied to them as such. This was my first contact with VCS regarding anything. I did not hear anything else until DCBL starting sending demands this year.
  

I'd like to ask you all:

1. If I'm on the right track
2. For any general advice/pointers
   
3. To proof read my defence before I submit it shortly.

Thanks in advance.

Defence (Only parts that I've modified from the template)

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [date1], [date2], [date3] (x2) . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to a material location as ‘Berkeley Centre Pay & Display, Sheffield’ for the reference [reference]. It is admitted that on this occasion, the Defendant was driving the vehicle. However the signage upon entering the land was not clearly visible. The material location had historically been free to park for a limit of two hours. I note that my duration of stay was under this limit. This unexpected change of terms had not been brought to my attention and as such they have failed to meet the Code of Practice and failed to meet the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules about prominence and transparency of terms.

4. The Particulars refer to another material location as [residential-location]. The Defendant had, between [tenancy-start] until [tenancy-end], held legal title under the terms of an assured shorthand tenancy, to [address] at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

5. The parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

6. There are no terms within the tenancy agreement requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

7. The Terms & Conditions stated that ‘If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed’ with no further information as to what would make a permit/ticket a requirement for parking at the premises.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to ‘Valid Parking Permits Only', and suggest that by parking without a valid parking permit, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no valid parking permit, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the tenancy agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

Le_Kirk

Defences are written in the third person and therefore no "I", "me" or "my".  Spotted a couple.

KeithP

nfsu26 said:

I have received my N1 Claim form from DCBL regarding 4 PCNs dating from 2018 & 2019.

MCOL Dates:
Claim issued against me on 24/11/2021
AOS submitted on 08/12/2021
AOS received on 09/12/2021

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December 2021 to file your Defence.

That's 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'.

Fruitcake

What was the specific reason given for the Berkley Precinct PCN and when precisely did the alleged event occur? Google street view images show this as being 2 hours free parking in all images up to 2018, but a pay car park from May 2019. 

It should also be noted the the signs changed from VCS to Excel between 2018 and 2019. They are a completely different company according to Companies House, even if the are owned by the same person.

I seem to recall a thread a few years ago where the poster had obtained letters and a landowner contract, so I suggest you do a search using the site name as the search criteria. You might find a search engine and entering moneysaving expert into the search criteria gives you better results than using the dreadful MSE search facility.

Fruitcake

Found it. I had it in my bookmark list.

This is the thread.

Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS — MoneySavingExpert Forum

The letters and contract are shown from about this point in that thread.

Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS - Page 11 — MoneySavingExpert Forum

That thread will take some reading, but there is a lot of useful info, especially the ending because the poster won his case, as did a friend of his who used the same defence.

D_P_Dance

Read these and complain to your MP

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/

patient_dream

Amazed VCS are using DCBL again. DCBL took VCS into a car crash

VCS Caught Issuing PCNs on Public Highway - Hit For £1,000 Counterclaim

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6308128/vcs-caught-issuing-pcns-on-public-highway-hit-for-1-000-counterclaim/p1

YOUR CASE
There is no mention of parking in the tenancy agreement whatsoever.?
Your agreement over-rides any parking company and judges love to spank those legals who are stupid enough to waste the courts time

and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.?
And that is grounds for a counterclaim.  This is something you should do before DCBL realise their claim is futile as it means the claim is live and they cannot discontinue

nfsu26

Fruitcake said:

What was the specific reason given for the Berkley Precinct PCN and when precisely did the alleged event occur? 

The specific reason given was 
101) Parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The Maximum period allowed at this site is minutes
(They didn't even bother to put the max time in)

The alleged event occurred on 02/02/2019

Thanks for the link in your follow-up post. I will have a read of that.

Fruitcake

nfsu26 said:

Fruitcake said:

What was the specific reason given for the Berkley Precinct PCN and when precisely did the alleged event occur? 

The specific reason given was 
101) Parked without payment of the parking tariff for the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle on site. The Maximum period allowed at this site is minutes
(They didn't even bother to put the max time in)

The alleged event occurred on 02/02/2019

Thanks for the link in your follow-up post. I will have a read of that.

Okay, you need to carefully follow the paper trail of contracts and letters for the Berkley Precinct PCN from the thread I linked, making notes of dates of letters and dates of contracts and the names of the companies involved.
Basically, Excel had a contract with the landowner, but their sister company VCS put up signs and issued PCNs for not paying, but somewhere the landowner contract says it is free parking.

Judges have thrown out similar cases because the contract is in the name of a completely different company to the one named on the signs and the PCNs.

nfsu26

Updated defence to include my counterclaim which I'm going to base off the improper handling of my personal data from this VCS counterclaim

Not too sure how heavy on the detail I need to go into regarding the counterclaim (at the bottom of defence)

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: [redacted]
Between
Vehicle Control Services Ltd
(Claimant)
-and-
Nfsu26
(Defendant)


DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

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

1. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [date1], [date2], [date3] (x2) . However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

1. The Particulars refer to a material location as ‘Berkeley Centre Pay & Display, Sheffield’ for the reference [REF1]. It is admitted that on this occasion, the Defendant was driving the vehicle. The material location had historically been free to park for a limit of two hours. It is noted that the duration of stay was under this limit. This unexpected change of terms had not been brought to the Defendants attention and as such, the Claimant has failed to meet the Code of Practice and failed to meet the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules about prominence and transparency of terms.      
2. The claim referring to [REF1] is in the name Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820), whereas the signage displayed at the material location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity.  Any contract in a private car park can only be formed by signage and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. The Claimant were not a party to such a contract and cannot sue on it.
   
   
3. The Particulars refer to another material location as ‘[Residential Location]'. The Defendant had, between [tenancy-start] until [tenancy-end], held legal title under the terms of an assured shorthand tenancy, to [Apartment No] at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.
   
4. The parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.
   
5. There are no terms within the tenancy agreement requiring tenants to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.
   
6. The Terms & Conditions signs stated that ‘If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed’ with no further information as to what would make a permit/ticket a requirement for parking at the premises.
   
7. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to ‘Valid Parking Permits Only', and suggest that by parking without a valid parking permit, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no valid parking permit, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.
   
8. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the tenancy agreement and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.
   
9. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

Redacted Template parts up to 'In the matter of costs'

AND THE DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMS: -

1. 
   (a) Compensation in the sum of: £1000 or such sum as the Court sees fit including the award of aggravated damages at the court’s discretion;
   
   (b) Court fees: £70.00 filing fee
   
   (c) Interest pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984, at such rates / for such periods on the sums found due to the Defendant as the Court may deem fit;
   
   (d) Costs to be assessed.  As a result of the Claimants’ unreasonable behaviour, the Court is respectfully invited to order the Claimants to pay the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules, rule 27.14 (2) (g).  

Followed by Statement of Truth

Coupon-mad

It is confusing to go from talking about the Berkeley Centre, to suddenly going for a residential defence.

I think you need to add sub-headings 'PCN nos. xxxxxx, xxxxxx and xxxxxx - re Berkeley Centre' then the other one separately.

You have not used the template defence so you are missing the usual points about lack of landowner authority, unclear signs/no contract and the false added costs that were never incurred.

You are completely wasting your money on a counterclaim because you haven't argued any legal basis for it al all, so it will be struck out.  Examples of counterclaims are in threads by @eagleman_100 and @Nosy and @ellaro9.