Claim defence: VCS long-standing residential parking dispute

bluebanana62

Hi,

I've received a County Court claim form on 2 Feb 2023 for a long-standing VCS dispute. I've completed the AoS online, which I believe gives me until 7 March to provide a defence. I was hoping to get a bit of input into what I should include/exclude in the defence.

Background

I had a parking permit for previous rented accommodation. No parking was included in the accommodation contract, and instead one could pay several hundred £ a year for the pleasure of a space. Payment was to the landlord and the permit was provided as a tax-disc-style permit attached to a terms & conditions of use by VCS. The permit was for the space and was not attached to a VRN in any way (so the space could be used for any vehicle which had the permit).

In early 2018 I changed vehicles and had not yet managed to acquire a suitable holder for the permit. At some point it must have blown off the dash, and a VCS "parking charge" card had been placed in the window. As per the T&Cs I requested a new permit from the landlord, however by the time it arrived I'd received two more "parking charge" cards. So 3 charges, £100 per charge. (It should be noted that the T&Cs state that in the interim a guest permit should be used, but I was not issued with those)

Of course after receiving the NTKs, I explained the situation to the landlord however they stated they couldn't (AKA they refused to) have the charges revoked. Funnily enough, VCS are no longer facilitating the parking at the property, due to complaints from residents... I also disputed this through VCS (essentially stating the above), who did not revoke it, however following advice on this forum didn't appeal through IAS.

I received an LBC around 6 months later but then nothing until 2021 when I received a barrage of letters from DCBL and eventually a "Letter of Claim". Did the usual SAR etc., they took 6 months to respond. Then nothing until June 2022 when I received another Letter of Claim, asked for the info they failed to provide, then rinse and repeat.

One thing worth noting is that the VCS & DCBL's line has always been that I have parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit, which is against the terms agreed *on the sign*. No acknowledgement of the T&Cs provided with the permit. The wording on the sign is as follows ([] my own annotations):

[Largest] PRIVATE LAND
[Medium] Terms and Conditions Apply
[Large, bold] Valid Parking Permits Only
[Medium, bold] - Park Only Within Allocated Bays -
[Small] If a valid permit/ticket is required, the permit/ticket must be clearly displayed (with all details visible) inside the front windscreen of the vehicle at all times.
[Medium] By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd. Do not remain on this land unless you fully understand and agree to the contractual terms and conditions stated on this sign. If you breach the terms and conditions you agree to pay the Parking Charge stated below.
[Very large] Charges Apply 24 Hours Per Day
[Large, bold] Parking charge £100.00 [V. small] Per day or part day
[Medium] Reducing to £60.00 if full payment is received within 14 days of the Parking Charge Notice issue date.
[Blurb about additional costs incurred and some tiny text I can't read from the photo.]

They finally answered most of my requests in December 2022, in particular claiming this is a breach of contract rather than a contractual charge. Then as mentioned I received the claim form in Feb 2023 which I've AoS'd.

They claim:
"1. £480 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.89 of the Count Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.07 until judgment or sooner payment. 3. Court costs and court fees"

The amount claimed is around £700 plus £70 court fees and £70 legal representative's costs. I don't really understand how they got to £700 from the above.

(Exact dates and figures approximated for the purposes of this post)

Queries

My main query is around what to include and exclude from the claim. In particular, they have never mentioned or acknowledged in the correspondance (except in the original appeal) that I had a permit. Should I include this fact in the defense or specifically respond relating to the signage T&Cs? On one side, if I bring up the permit T&Cs they could claim that I have essentially agreed to this, and therefore could claim am breaching *those* T&Cs. In addition, am I right in thinking that a key part of the defense is that the signage is prohibitive, i.e. "Valid Parking Permits Only" prohibits parking without a permit? On the flip side, I wonder if it could help my case that I did request a new permit.

I assume that one of the key defense points here is going to be the added costs? I'm aware of the "added costs" template and will be using this as a starting point.

Anything else worth considering?

Many thanks in advance.

KeithP

bluebanana62 said:

I've received a County Court claim form on 2 Feb 2023 for a long-standing VCS dispute. I've completed the AoS online, which I believe gives me until 7 March to provide a defence.

Hello and welcome.

You say you 'received a County Court claim form on 2 Feb 2023', but what is the Issue Date on the form?

bluebanana62

You say you 'received a County Court claim form on 2 Feb 2023', but what is the Issue Date on the form?

Correction: the Issue Date was 2 Feb.

Received it on 10th

KeithP

bluebanana62 said:

I've completed the AoS online, which I believe gives me until 7 March to provide a defence.

You are right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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 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'.

bluebanana62

I've prepared a first draft of the defense; any feedback would be much appreciated.

This is based on the "false admin costs" template. I intend to tweak some of the later paragraphs particularly around the wording of "parking charge", as the claim does not appear to be for a parking charge but rather a breach of contract, and the following elaboration in the cost section:

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5, in particular the sending of no fewer than three “Letters Of/Before Claim” between 1 October 2018 and 15 June 2022, with no apparent objective other than to harass and intimidate the Defendant, and extortionately long delays of 5-6 months in responding to requests for information.

The non-template part of the defense is as follows:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant lived in a rented flat at [...] let by [...] (the Landlord) adjacent to the parking place in question. The Claimant claims the land in question is “owned or managed” by the Claimant however this is denied. HM Land Registry records show that the Landlord is a freehold owner of the flat and a leasehold owner of the specific parking area in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they were contracted to anything more than tightly specified parking services.

4. The tenancy agreement of the letting contains some terms regarding responsible parking such as “You must not … Park in a parking space not allocated to you if you have been allocated a car-parking space of your own” and some terms about parking spaces “away from the property” – clearly not relevant in this case. Nowhere does it mention contractual obligations to third parties nor the need to display a permit when parked in the vicinity of the property. [Note: seeking access to original copy of agreement to confirm these terms]

5. The Defendant had ownership of a parking permit at the time of the alleged charge, provided by the Landlord at a cost of £250 per 6 month period (paid directly to the Landlord), assigning a specified bay – bay 11 – in the parking place in question. This was deemed to be a contractual relationship between the Defendant and the Landlord; no third party such as the Claimant was ever mentioned.

6. The permit came accompanied with “Terms & Conditions of Use” sheet containing the Claimant’s branding, which was clearly intended to be between “the Company” (the Claimant) and their “Client” (the Landlord). For instance, there were terms around the issuing and return of permits, however at no time did the Defendant deal with the Claimant with any matters regarding parking or permits, it was always with the Landlord.

7. On 21 January 2018 the Defendant changed his vehicle and transferred the permit to the new vehicle. Due to the style and size of the permit (paper, non-adhesive, circular, slightly larger than traditional tax disc), and the obsolescence of tax discs, it was difficult for the Defendant to procure a suitable holder for the permit in a timely manner. As such the permit was temporarily left on the dashboard of the vehicle, unattached.

8. At some point before the date of the first PCN (2 February 2018), the permit must have moved from the visible position on the dashboard (either slipped down the dashboard or exited the vehicle). This was most likely when the Defendant, the other insured driver, or a passenger entered or exited the vehicle causing a gust of air through the vehicle.

9. On the evening of Saturday 3 February 2018 the Defendant noticed two yellow cards stating “!ATTENTION! DOCUMENT ENCLOSED” “THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”. This drew the Defendant’s attention to the fact that the permit was missing. At 19:19 on the same date, the Defendant emailed the Landlord asking for a replacement permit, which, due to business hours, was posted first class on Monday 5 February 2018 and received on 6th. By this time a third similar card was placed on the windscreen.

10. The Claimant claims a Contract was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant by way of the signage in the car park. The signage stated that “By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd.”. However, this is untrue, as (a) such “private land” was the only access to the Defendant’s flat, use of which was granted in the tenancy agreement, and (b) the Claimant’s contract with the Landlord did not grant them authority to form contracts with third parties.

11. The Claimant’s signs stated, “Valid Parking Permits Only”. This is forbidding in nature for vehicles not displaying a valid permit, therefore a driver or keeper of a vehicle not displaying a valid permit such as the Defendant cannot be entered into the contract.

12. The Claimant claims that the Defendant agreed to pay the claim amount if the supposed contract was breached, however the signs mentioned only figures relating to a “parking charge” and not a breach of contract.

Many thanks in advance.

bluebanana62

I've updated the defence and re-ordered it a bit. Any feedback would be much appreciated; I plan to submit it on Monday.

I've removed the extension to the unreasonable behaviour costs bit, as it doesn't seem to fit and I don't think it's relevant to the defence; maybe I can bring it up later to argue unreasonable behaviour?

I've made minor changes to the template text, including around the part regarding landowner authority, as it's slightly nuanced in this case, but didn't think it was worth copying here.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant lived in a rented flat at [...] let by [...] (the Landlord) adjacent to the parking place in question.

4. The Claimant claims the land in question is “owned or managed” by the Claimant however this is denied. HM Land Registry records show that the Landlord is a freehold owner of the flat and a leasehold owner of the specific parking area in question. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they were contracted to anything more than tightly specified parking services.

5. Use of the parking bay was provided as a direct agreement between the Defendant and the Landlord. The Defendant had ownership of a parking permit at the time of the alleged charge, provided by the Landlord at a cost of £250 per 6-month period (paid directly to the Landlord), assigning a specified bay – bay 11 – in the parking place in question. This was deemed to be a contractual relationship between the Defendant and the Landlord; no third party such as the Claimant was ever mentioned.

6. The permit came accompanied with “Terms & Conditions of Use” sheet containing the Claimant’s branding, which was clearly intended to be between “the Company” (the Claimant) and their “Client” (the Landlord). For instance, there were terms around the issuing and return of permits, however at no time did the Defendant deal with the Claimant with any matters regarding parking or permits, it was always with the Landlord.

7. The tenancy agreement of the letting contains some terms regarding responsible parking, however, nowhere does it mention contractual obligations to third parties nor the need to display a permit when parked in the vicinity of the property.

8. On 21 January 2018 the Defendant changed his vehicle and transferred the permit to the new vehicle. Due to the style and size of the permit (paper, non-adhesive, circular, slightly larger than traditional tax disc), and the obsolescence of tax discs, it was difficult for the Defendant to procure a suitable holder for the permit in a timely manner. As such the permit was temporarily left on the dashboard of the vehicle, unattached.

9. At some point on or before Friday 2 February 2018, the permit must have moved from the visible position on the dashboard (either slipped down the dashboard or exited the vehicle). This was most likely when the Defendant, the other insured driver, or a passenger entered or exited the vehicle causing a gust of air through the vehicle.

10. On the evening of Saturday 3 February 2018 the Defendant noticed two yellow cards attached to his windscreen stating “!ATTENTION! DOCUMENT ENCLOSED” “THIS IS NOT A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE”. This drew the Defendant’s attention to the fact that the permit was missing. At 19:19 on the same date, the Defendant emailed the Landlord asking for a replacement permit, which, due to business hours, was posted first class on Monday 5 February 2018 and received on 6th. By this time a third similar card was placed on the windscreen.

11. The Claimant claims a Contract was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant by way of the signage in the car park. The signage stated that “By entering this private land you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd.”. However, this is disputed, as (a) such “private land” was the only access to the Defendant’s flat, use of which was granted in the tenancy agreement and could not have been overridden by a contract by a third party, and (b) the Claimant’s contract with the Landlord did not grant them authority to form contracts with third parties including tenants.

12. The Claimant’s signs stated, “Valid Parking Permits Only”. This is forbidding in nature for vehicles not displaying a valid permit, therefore a driver or keeper of a vehicle not displaying a valid permit such as the Defendant cannot be entered into a contract.

13. The Claimant’s signs and claim are extremely unclear about the nature of the alleged charge and the alleged claim. The claimant claims the charge is for a breach of contract, but it is perverse to disguise a charge for a breach of contract under a so-called “parking charge”. A parking charge by its very definition is a charge for parking.

Many thanks again.

Le_Kirk

I've removed the extension to the unreasonable behaviour costs bit, as it doesn't seem to fit and I don't think it's relevant to the defence; maybe I can bring it up later to argue unreasonable behaviour?

If it is not in your defence, you cannot refer to it in your witness statement, which is the only "later" there will be.  It is unwise to alter the template defence; it has been written specifically to enable witness statements and evidence to be provided later that fully back up what the defence stated.

bluebanana62

Le_Kirk said:

If it is not in your defence, you cannot refer to it in your witness statement, which is the only "later" there will be.  It is unwise to alter the template defence; it has been written specifically to enable witness statements and evidence to be provided later that fully back up what the defence stated.

Thanks Le_Kirk. I meant I removed the bit I previouly added to the template, so the bit around costs is actually back as it was before modification.

bluebanana62

Hi all,

I now have a hearing date on 9 January 2024. I have until 26 December to submit my Witness Statement, although I would like to get it in sooner than that.

I have received the Claimant's WS which I can post if useful, however I have prepared a draft WS that I would very much appreciate any feedback on.

Many thanks in advance!

In the County Court at xxxxx

Claim no. xxxxx

Between:-

Vehicle Control Services Limited

Claimant

-V-

xxxxx

Defendant

 

I, xxxxx, of xxxxx, state as follows:-

Background and sequence of events

1.       I was the owner, keeper, and driver of xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (the Vehicle) at the time of the alleged contract contravention. I purchased the vehicle on 21 January 2018.

2.       I was a resident at an apartment of xxxxx (the land in question) at the time of the alleged contract contravention. The apartment was jointly rented (with another occupant) from xxxxx (the Landlord).

3.       Rental of the apartment alone did not include parking provision, however it was possible to obtain use of a parking space from the Landlord at a cost of £250 per 6 months, made payable to the Landlord. Exhibit 1 shows the email chain between myself and the Landlord in setting this up the initial permit, and an email on 15 December 2017, confirming my renewal for the period coving the alleged contravention dates, and that I was assigned Bay 11.

4.       Upon replacing my previous car with the Vehicle, I found it difficult to promptly procure a suitable permit holder, due to the nature of the permit being paper, non-adhesive, circular, and slightly larger than a traditional tax disc. Tax disc holders are difficult to obtain now tax discs are obsolete, and it did not fit in standard holders. Whilst trying to find a suitable holder, the permit was left visible sitting on the dashboard.

5.       On the evening of 3 February 2018, I noticed two yellow cards on the dashboard from the Claimant, which drew my attention to the fact the permit was missing. To avoid further confusion, I immediately requested a new permit from the Landlord, which I received on 6 February. In this time another card had been placed on the dashboard.

6.       At the time, I both appealed the parking charge through the Claimant’s system, and also asked the Landlord to request the charge to be revoked. Neither resulted in my favour, however I still dispute that I ever entered a contract with or owe a debt to the Claimant.

Land management

7.       The claim states that the Claimant “owns or manages” the land. This is disputed: the Claimant’s evidence indicates their contract was strictly for “parking control services”.

8.       The Claimant claims that they had landowner authority to manage parking on the land in question. The Exhibit they provided hides dates, however my Exhibit 4 shows a copy the Claimant has previously sent to me, which expired on 31 December 2005. The Claimant claims the agreement was renewed, however has provided no evidence of this.

Legitimate interest

9.       I dispute that the Landowner’s legitimate interest to manage the Land is “because it is a shopping area”. The site is residential, as are most of the surrounding buildings, with the main exception of two retail units opposite, which have their own, large, free, car park. I propose that the Landowner’s legitimate interest is to stop persons other than those who have paid for parking from parking in the bays. As such, there is no legitimate interest to charge those who have already purchased parking from said Landowner.

10.   If the Claimant’s legitimate interest is to protect this, then such an interest falls through when it is my own space which is allegedly being protected.

Primacy of contract

11.   The Claimant’s signs stated that by simply entering the land I was entering into a contract with the Claimant, however this simply cannot have been the case, since access to the land was provided by way of my residential contract with the Landlord; this could not have been overridden by a third party contract such as the Claimant’s.

12.   At no point in the set up, renewal or eventual termination of my parking permit did I ever deal with the Defendant. I was always dealing directly with the Landlord.

13.   I understood there was parking management in place, managed by the Defendant, however the purpose of this was surely to have been to prevent unauthorised users of the car park, not those who have purchased access to a parking space (indeed, I paid £500 a year to have use of a parking space, not to have a permit).

14.   It is therefore impossible that I could be expected to enter into another contract, when I already had an agreement in place with the Landlord that I could park in the given space.

15.   I therefore deny ever entering into a contract with the Claimant.

Validity of contract

16.   The signage of the alleged contract contained small text, difficult to read, some of which the Claimant’s Witness Statement refers to. However from the Claimant’s own evidence (Exhibit 2 photographs), this can hardly be read, so cannot be expected to be read by someone parking in the parking area. The digital representation does not match the photographs so must not be considered.

17.   The sign clearly stated, “Valid Parking Permits Only”, so I dispute that a contract could be formed without a valid permit.

Exaggerated costs

18.   The original alleged charge was £300. The Claimant is now claiming £695.48. The Claimant claims in the Particulars of Claim that £480 is “the total of the PCN(s) and damages”. I dispute that pursuing the claim by sending of template letters caused the Claimant £180 in damages. The Claimant has yet to provide evidence to the contrary.

19.   Unknown costs over and above the alleged charge of £300 were not quantified on prominent text (or at all) on signage.

20.   The quantity of interest added is the result of the Claimant’s own actions; had they filed their claim soon after their initial Letter Before Claim (issued on 1 October 2018, see Exhibit 2), the value of the claim would have been far less.

Claimant’s evidence and witness statement

21.   The first image (digital sign representation) in Exhibit 2 of the Defendant’s Witness Statement is completely different wording to the photographs, and I request it is thrown out.

22.   The Defendant’s Witness Statement has numerous factual inaccuracies which even contradict its own evidence, such as Paragraph 18 stating that a Privacy Notice was affixed to the vehicle, and relies on their Exhibit 3, when in reality, their Exhibit 3 shows no such “Privacy Notice”, nor does it contain the privacy information suggested, as shown in my Exhibit 3.

23.   I put to the court that the Claimant’s Witness Statement is a template Witness Statement and bears limited relevance to the case. I politely request it is thrown out, as it clearly contains factual inaccuracies.

Unreasonable behaviour

24.   The Claimant and their representative have behaved completely unreasonably throughout the duration of this matter. I put to the court that the Claimant has seeked to abuse the court process only to scare and harass me.

25.   The initial correspondence was received in February 2018, and after various threatening letters, a Letter Before Claim was sent on 1 October 2018 (Exhibit 3). There was no court claim issued until 2 February 2023, but between these periods, no fewer than two more Letter of Claims were issued, in June 2021 and June 2022 (Exhibit 3).

26.   I repeatedly requested basic information from the Claimant or their representative about the claim(s) - some of which should have been supplied on their Reply Form but wasn’t - which were either never provided or in some cases took up to 6 months to respond (Exhibit 5).

Costs

27.   I claim fixed costs pursuant to CPR 27.14.

28.   I ask for finding of unreasonable conduct in relation to paragraphs 24-26 and seek costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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 documents verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Coupon-mad

It's quite a good start and relevant to your case so you can use a lot of that, but it isn't based on the example WS in the NEWBIES thread.

You've missed all the usual important exhibits.

Exhibiting the Claimant's various LBCs isn't useful.

And check for grammatical errors, e.g. 

"the Claimant has seeked"

bluebanana62

Hi, many thanks for your reply.

Coupon-mad said:

It's quite a good start and relevant to your case so you can use a lot of that, but it isn't based on the example WS in the NEWBIES thread.

You've missed all the usual important exhibits.

I'm not sure exactly which example is being referred to, but will take another look, cheers.