VCS Notice to Keeper – left car park – Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip – VCS LBC – ELMS Legal NOInstr

B789

ken1_2 said:

B789 – As I understand it a PCN is PoFA compliant if there has been no windscreen ticket and the PCN arrives by post within 14 days. The PPC can allege keeper liability by issuing the PCN with the wording as in post#4. I hope this makes it clearer.  

Yes, that is correct. However, you quoted the relevant paragraph from your PCN which is POFA compliant and as you received the PCN within the timeframe allowed, liability CAN transfer from the driver to you, the RK.

In your sample letter above you appear to be telling them that you are not liable as the RK. As the PCN is POFA compliant, therefore, they CAN transfer liability to you. Still, it doesn't change much as these silly "driver left premises" claims rarely get before a judge as they are extremely likely to end in a spanking from the court for the claimant.

Coupon-mad

I like the letters that Gan writes on pepipoo.  He's a great addition to that forum and it's a shame he's not here too (but then again, I'm not over there on pepipoo much any more either!).

ken1_2

@Coupon-mad I am sure all those having problems with PCN's on this forum appreciate your efforts. Hopefully between all the forums we can stop these companies from getting our hard earned cash.

There has been a development in that a Claim Form has now been received. It can be viewed here hxxps://imgur.com/a/P51RPVR

Any advice would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Same as this case in terms of defence:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6427731/county-court-claim-leaving-site/p1

KeithP

ken1_2 said:

There has been a development in that a Claim Form has now been received. It can be viewed here hxxps://imgur.com/a/P51RPVR

Your link made live... https://imgur.com/a/P51RPVR
You've been here long enough now - nearly nine years - to be able to post live links.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st February, you have until Monday 13th March to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

ken1_2

Thank you Coupon-mad and KeithP.

I will try to keep my defence as brief as possible. 

Coupon-mad

No, you are using and emailing (NOT on MCOL) your own bespoke defence (using the help of the Template Defence) making it at least 27 paragraphs, but we don't need to check that bit!

ken1_2

Acknowledgement of Service has been done.

Here is my proposed defence

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXX. 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 

3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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.  

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  

6. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

7. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

8. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

9. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

10. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

11. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

12. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

13.  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.

Le_Kirk

Are you not using the template defence?

Coupon-mad

ken1_2 said:

Thank you Coupon-mad and KeithP.

I will try to keep my defence as brief as possible. 

That is not what we advised.

You've copied some stuff intended for DCBLegal badly-pleaded claims only. I doubt the same is true about the Particulars of Claim in your case.

Just copy and adapt the Template Defence, drafting and adding facts to make it your own.