Bristol Airport VCS - Stopping to Drop Off Charge Notice - Pedestrian Crossing

Im_tired_of_this

1505grandad said:

"I'm submitting my Money Claim Online (moneyclaim.gov.uk) defence particulars tomorrow (Sunday 23rd),...."

Please confirm that you will not be using the MCOL box but will be using the "sticky" template Defence which will be emailed to CBBC?

Thanks @1505grandad, My defence has been submitted in a condensed form (122 lines) via the MCOL box. I must have missed the recommendations not to use the MCOL online form. Yes, the template defence process talks through an email approach, but given the lateness of my submission, I thought it was best to submit it online. 

KeithP said:

Im_tired_of_this said:

Three weeks later (21/9/2022) I received the county court Claim Form. I submitted my Acknowledgement of Service online on 03/10/2022. The 14 days from the AoS deadline (10/10/2022) for submitting my defence is Monday 24th.

You say that you received the Claim Form on 21st September, but can you now please tell us the Issue Date on it?

I am going to assume that the Issue Date is 21st September.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, then as you say, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th October 2022 to file your Defence.

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'.

Thanks @keithp yes, issue date 21st September. And thank you for your follow-up post at 7pm last night. I really appreciate the support! So no, not ignoring, just failing to navigate the forum effectively! 

Fruitcake said:

Do not submit your defence outside office working hours as it may not be registered. Send it instead on Monday morning.

Please show us the parts of the defence template you have amended. Ensure you include points about not being liable for the actions of a passenger who was not the driver, keeper, or hirer/lessee.
You need to hammer home that the vehicle was stopped at a zebra crossing.

Thanks @Fruitcake. Defence submission has been acknowledged:

Your defence was submitted on 23/10/2022 at 17:40:53

Your defence was received on 24/10/2022 at 08:05:13

I'll post my defence in a separate message, to keep the thread easier to read. I haven't tracked changes from the template response, as I merged it with the @steveaduk one, as it was closer to my specific situation.  I may not have hammered home that the vehicle was stopped at a zebra crossing, but it is in the key parts of the evidence at the beginning of my defence. And no, I have not specifically said that I am not liable for the actions of the passenger. I figured that the passenger didn't stop the vehicle, so their actions are not material to the claim on me. I do say that the 'passenger got out of the car without warning'.   

--------------

So, given that my defence via MCOL is submitted and not now editable, do you recommend that I also follow the email route described in the Newbie thread, and send the fuller document there?

Im_tired_of_this

I have until 4pm today to send something else.

Im_tired_of_this

This is the defence as submitted via MCOL. It is the 122 line condensed form. I have a fuller version that extends to 1500 words, that includes all the detail from the template defence, that I expect to submit in my court bundle should the opportunity arise. 

(Now I'm really nervous that you are going to find lots that needed improvement)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Systems Limited
7 Europa View
Sheffield Business Park
Sheffield S9 1XH

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

4. The Defendant was visiting Bristol Airport on the XXXXXXX to drop his passenger off to catch a plane. They were on time and were intending to use the Drop-off area to facilitate this. Driving northwards on North Side Road, comfortably under the 20 mph speed limit, the Defendant approached the middle of three zebra crossings directly in front of the main terminal. A pedestrian was near the crossing, on the west side, heading towards the car park, so the Defendant duly stopped, as required by law. At this point the Defendant’s passenger got out of the car without warning. A few seconds later it was clear the pedestrian was not going to cross, so the Defendant drove on. The car was stationary for approximately six seconds, according to the photographs provided by the Claimant.   

No keeper liability

5. The vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered Keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by this Claimant to have stopped briefly at a pedestrian crossing. As the Claimant did not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

6. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.

7. A parking charge notice has been issued for a non-parking event. Stopping at a pedestrian crossing is not parking. 

No contract existed

8. The Claimant claims that there was a breach of contract for 'breaching the terms and conditions' set on private land.

9. The Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a ‘contract’ between a driver and the Claimant, and the breaching of terms presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage. 

10. It is the Defendant’s position that no contract existed and that accepting conduct and declining conduct are contradictory as one cannot be performed without first performing the other.

11. It is the Defendant’s further position that due to the size of font used on the signage, the nature of the prohibited act is foremost and there is no laying out of what the accepting conduct might be. And given their location on a main thoroughfare they are not readily legible without having first performed the prohibited act, i.e. stopping. It is the Defendant’s position that there is doubt before performing the accepting conduct.

No Grace Period

12. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator and a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and according to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued to the Defendant, operates in accordance with their Code of Practice.

13. The IPC Code of Practice (Eighth Edition that was in force at the time of the event) Clause 13 states that a ‘grace’ period must be allowed: 'Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land.'.

14. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-10 minutes from the period of stopping. According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of six seconds. Thus, a grace period was not observed and therefore the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, and therefore in default of the contract that exists between them and the DVLA; hence the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences. As such the actions of the Claimant were not compliant with PoFa 2012 and as such there is no possibility of a legal parking charge and therefore there was no 'reasonable grounds' to pursue the keeper or driver, such pursuit being a breach of section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998.

15. Additionally, no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

Sums Claimed

16. The Claimant is seeking an additional £70 ‘debt recovery cost’ over and above the original Notice to Keeper amount of charge of £100.

17. The Government has now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice. In which adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned.

PoFa and CRA breaches

18. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the PoFa') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other PoFa requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation').  If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred.  

Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR

19. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules).  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.

Conclusion

20. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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.

 

Im_tired_of_this

Oh, and I counter-claimed for Distress & Anxiety and for breaching the Data Protection Act. 

Fruitcake

Im_tired_of_this said:

1505grandad said:

"I'm submitting my Money Claim Online (moneyclaim.gov.uk) defence particulars tomorrow (Sunday 23rd),...."

Please confirm that you will not be using the MCOL box but will be using the "sticky" template Defence which will be emailed to CBBC?

Thanks @1505grandad, My defence has been submitted in a condensed form (122 lines) via the MCOL box. I must have missed the recommendations not to use the MCOL online form. Yes, the template defence process talks through an email approach, but given the lateness of my submission, I thought it was best to submit it online. 

KeithP said:

Im_tired_of_this said:

Three weeks later (21/9/2022) I received the county court Claim Form. I submitted my Acknowledgement of Service online on 03/10/2022. The 14 days from the AoS deadline (10/10/2022) for submitting my defence is Monday 24th.

You say that you received the Claim Form on 21st September, but can you now please tell us the Issue Date on it?

I am going to assume that the Issue Date is 21st September.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, then as you say, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th October 2022 to file your Defence.

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'.

Thanks @keithp yes, issue date 21st September. And thank you for your follow-up post at 7pm last night. I really appreciate the support! So no, not ignoring, just failing to navigate the forum effectively! 

Fruitcake said:

Do not submit your defence outside office working hours as it may not be registered. Send it instead on Monday morning.

Please show us the parts of the defence template you have amended. Ensure you include points about not being liable for the actions of a passenger who was not the driver, keeper, or hirer/lessee.
You need to hammer home that the vehicle was stopped at a zebra crossing.

Thanks @Fruitcake. Defence submission has been acknowledged:

Your defence was submitted on 23/10/2022 at 17:40:53

Your defence was received on 24/10/2022 at 08:05:13

I'll post my defence in a separate message, to keep the thread easier to read. I haven't tracked changes from the template response, as I merged it with the @steveaduk one, as it was closer to my specific situation.  I may not have hammered home that the vehicle was stopped at a zebra crossing, but it is in the key parts of the evidence at the beginning of my defence. And no, I have not specifically said that I am not liable for the actions of the passenger. I figured that the passenger didn't stop the vehicle, so their actions are not material to the claim on me. I do say that the 'passenger got out of the car without warning'.   

--------------

So, given that my defence via MCOL is submitted and not now editable, do you recommend that I also follow the email route described in the Newbie thread, and send the fuller document there?

You cannot amend your defence without paying a shedload of money. The advice not to condense it to fit the MCOL dialogue box is there to ensure every point is covered. By using MCOL you may have removed a winning defence point or points that will reduce how much you pay if you were to lose.

You might be able to contact the CCBC and ask them to ignore/delete your MCOL submission and resend it by email, but you need to do that now!

Im_tired_of_this

Thank you @Fruitcake. Will investigate now.

Trainerman

Try the advice from @Fruitcake. Be aware that your "Court Bundle" would be your WS which has to put meat on the points already made in Defence, NOT another 'Defence'. That is, unless you intend to, pay a 'shedload of money' to change your defence now in which case your WS must evidence the new version

Im_tired_of_this

Trainerman said:

Try the advice from @Fruitcake. Be aware that your "Court Bundle" would be your WS which has to put meat on the points already made in Defence, NOT another 'Defence'. That is, unless you intend to, pay a 'shedload of money' to change your defence now in which case your WS must evidence the new version

Thanks for that. I'm reasonably confident that my condensing of my defence did not lose any meaningful points, and that my witness statement will, as you put it, put meat on them. I had understood from the readings I've done, that I cannot introduce new points into my defence if they have not been referenced in some form in this original document. As such I don't think it will be a disaster if I don't change what I've already submitted.

I'm hold with the CCBC Money Claims department, and will see what they say.

B789

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

Errr.... you were told specifically NOT to admit you were the DRIVER. Yet, here in your defence you admit to being the driver and then go on to waffle on about POFA and no keeper liability... blah blah blah.

Sorry, but you certainly blew at least one almost-guaranteed chance to get this thrown out with a winnable exonerating defence. 

Makes this whole bit redundant:

No keeper liability

5. The vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered Keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by this Claimant to have stopped briefly at a pedestrian crossing. As the Claimant did not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

6. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.

Im_tired_of_this

B789 said:

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

Errr.... you were told specifically NOT to admit you were the DRIVER. Yet, here in your defence you admit to being the driver and then go on to waffle on about POFA and no keeper liability... blah blah blah.

Sorry, but you certainly blew at least one almost-guaranteed chance to get this thrown out with a winnable exonerating defence. 

Makes this whole bit redundant:

No keeper liability

5. The vehicle, registration XXXXXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered Keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by this Claimant to have stopped briefly at a pedestrian crossing. As the Claimant did not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

6. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.

Thanks @B789 I was aware of the contradictions in the recommendation not to admit being the driver, and then this bit, as bold as brass at the very beginning of the Template Defence:

The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH EVERY TIME, REGARDING WHO WAS DRIVING^.  
If you were driving (obviously, please edit this and don't wait for us to tell you...) add 'and driver'.  

Can someone explain? I was working on the assumption that this was the time to admit it, otherwise why would the template defence emphasis this?