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

Fruitcake

In your case, admitting to being the driver is a good thing in my opinion because you can tell the judge something like, "I stopped at a zebra crossing to let pedestrians cross; but my passenger got out without warning me".

The problem is that you appear to have contradicted this with comments about not knowing who the driver was and/or that you are relying on the PoFA and no keeper liability.

If you have cut out defence points from the template and removed references to case law, you cannot introduce them later. 

Please show us what you did submit so we at least know upon what you are relying.

Coupon-mad

Im_tired_of_this said:

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.

Maybe not as disastrous as I feared...who knows what this looks like in the stupid MCOL box though, all squashed, truncated and cropped?

What worries us (hence the shocked responses today) is that you read all the advice, knew that the template defence is successfully used (emailed as a PDF) every day of the week by new posters here, and runs to at least 25 paragraphs (and no-one edits it majorly, nor chops it up).

In your case, the awful MCOL system will truncate it and spit it out in a terrible format, possibly removing half what you thought went in.  Bargepole specifically warns against that in his 'court procedures' thread that I link in the NEWBIES thread under the red capitals heading 'IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN'.

The above wasn't bad - complete waste of your time to do all that editing though - and are you are sure all that wasn't lost (seems a lot for 122 lines)?

We've no idea what it will look like to a Judge.  I have seen how these MCOL defences print out and they are very hard to follow, because they creep across two pages with MCOL headings breaking it all up, and generally look terrible.

As we mentioned, 5 and 6 were pointless because you admitted to driving (the stance had to be one or the other) ...and the top and bottom wasted loads of lines!

Due to using a standard box, you didn't need a statement of truth (it's already standard in the MCOL system) nor all the headings at the top.  That box is for the defence wording only.

Never mind, nothing you can do about it now.  Whatever displays on MCOL is your defence.

Please do stay 'on piste' throughout the rest of the process though, starting with re-reading the 12 steps in the first post of the Template Defence thread, so there are no questions about N180 DQ stage, which is also covered in more depth by bargepole in the thread linked under that red capitals heading in the NEWBIES thread.

Im_tired_of_this

Thanks again @Coupon-mad

FYI, below is what it looks like in the MCOL system. Everything I intended to be there, from the condensed form, made it through. So it shouldn't be truncated any further. It could look better, naturally.

Understood re 5 and 6, got my wires crossed on that. 

I feel appropriately reprimanded for not following the instructions closely enough. I did not allow myself enough time. I promise to do better if I get to the next stage.

Coupon-mad

You don't have a counterclaim and answered that wrongly. Let that lie. Don't go ringing them up and paying a fee for a non-counterclaim that would be struck out.

I guess you can see now why we never tell anyone to use MCOL to start their defence?!

KeithP

Here's what I wrote on your thread just two days ago...

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.

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'.

See the words 'by email' in there?

See the sentence 'Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website'?

Im_tired_of_this

KeithP said:

Here's what I wrote on your thread just two days ago...

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.

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'.

See the words 'by email' in there?

See the sentence 'Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website'?

Thanks @KeithP sadly your post, along with some others managed to hide away on the next page of the thread, that I didn't realise was there until it was too late. But thank you for trying! 

Im_tired_of_this

Coupon-mad said:

You don't have a counterclaim and answered that wrongly. Let that lie. Don't go ringing them up and paying a fee for a non-counterclaim that would be struck out.

I guess you can see now why we never tell anyone to use MCOL to start their defence?!

I sure can! 

B789

Im_tired_of_this said:

Coupon-mad said:

You don't have a counterclaim and answered that wrongly. Let that lie. Don't go ringing them up and paying a fee for a non-counterclaim that would be struck out.

I guess you can see now why we never tell anyone to use MCOL to start their defence?!

I sure can! 

Is it too late to get your money back?

Im_tired_of_this

Hi everyone, 
I'm in receipt of a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track. Dated 25th October. 

I must, by 11th November (this coming Friday) complete the Small Claims Directions Questionnaire (Form N180) and file it with the court office and serve copies on all other parties.

It has listed my local County Court as the court I need to file with.

The numbering on the form is different from the recommended responses outlined in the message linked to in message no.2 in the Newbies thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411

The D section now refers to 'Suitability for determination without a hearing'. And the question says: "Do you consider that this claim is suitable for determination without a hearing, i.s. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements and other documentatis filed by the parties, making a decision and giving a note of reasons for that decision? 
There are Yes/No boxes  and an 'If no, please state why not' box. 

The version of the questionnaire is 06.22. 

I've found the thread by @Grizebeck that confirms these new questions:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6364201/new-questions-on-the-n180-form

in which @Coupon-mad says to answer 'No' and references the Telephone Hearing thread to help answer the 'If No, please state why not.' question. Can someone confirm if this is the correct Telephone Hearings thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6130456/telephone-hearings-re-parking-firm-claims-can-we-all-discuss-strategy-and-outcomes-here

Thanks in advance folks.

Umkomaas

I think there is a suggested response to Q D1 further on in a later post in @Grizebeck's thread. Most people are using that wording, with no reported adverse reactions from any court AFAIAA.