IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
VCS - Court Claim - Leeds Bradford Airport
bn06ash
Posts: 22 Forumite
Good morning,
I've received a county court claim in respect of a dispute I've been having with VCS. A PCN was received for stopping on double red lines.
I've read all the threads and tried to utilise previous responses to build my response in respect of this matter. It is probably worth noting that I am not the registered keeper, but was the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the alleged dispute.
Claim was received on 27/06/23 and I did the AOS today.
Proposed defence below:
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 (understood to have a bare licence as managers) 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.
The Facts as known to the defendant
2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ****; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle ******;. These assertions indicate 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 facts are that the vehicle, registration ******, of which the Defendant was the hirer.
4. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.
5. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.
6. 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.
7. The defendant has been informed that the driver was required to make an emergency stop. The vehicle did not park, it merely stopped and turned around in a in an emergency, the vehicle was not parked at any point. In Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed, his honour Judge Harris QC mentions that stopping briefly is not parking. "19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time"
8. If it is the Claimant's case that the area is intended as a 'no stopping zone' then they cannot also offer parking at a price, if the landowner (Airport) in fact intends to prohibit stopping. If cars are never authorised to stop under any circumstances, then any breach would be a matter that falls firmly under the tort of trespass.
9. It is believed that the contract this Claimant has with the Airport limits the parking firm to act as agent of the Airport who remain the (known) principal, in which case only the Airport can sue, not the agent in their own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
10. The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 Schedule 4 states that the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle if the driver is not known. However, Since PoFA cannot be used under byelaws, for contract-based parking tickets, only the driver could be held liable
11. This Claimant may try to persuade the court using the perverse decision in “VCS v Ward”, which can be fully distinguished and is far from persuasive when scrutinised. In that case, at appeal, the Defendant did not appear and the case reportedly ran completely against the interests of the victim consumer, such that the Judge even lamented the dreadful position he had been steered towards by this Claimant's legal representation, who, it seems, effectively ambushed the court with a case not first raised at the original hearing. In any event, the “VCS v Ward” case involved a business park and has no application to an Airport case, where the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit.
12. Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway)
Even if the Claimant is able to overcome the difficulties they face in showing that:
(a) they have locus to sue in their own name regarding this location, and that
(b) they offered a parking space with value, and a licence to park there, and that
(c) the Defendant was afforded the opportunity to accept contractual terms and that
(d) these terms were prominently displayed and well lit, and that
(e) this charge (described by the Airport as a 'fine') is somehow saved from the penalty rule, and
(f) the driver was in breach, despite the stopping of the car being out of the driver's control,
the Claimant is also put to strict proof that:
(g) this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. It is averred that the Airport approach road is public highway and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.
13. The road comes off a roundabout and is not clearly demarcated as private land, nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions would be a matter for the local authority. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.
14. The claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of 'the Airport' site where road traffic enactments do not apply.
15. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
I've received a county court claim in respect of a dispute I've been having with VCS. A PCN was received for stopping on double red lines.
I've read all the threads and tried to utilise previous responses to build my response in respect of this matter. It is probably worth noting that I am not the registered keeper, but was the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the alleged dispute.
Claim was received on 27/06/23 and I did the AOS today.
Proposed defence below:
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 (understood to have a bare licence as managers) 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.
The Facts as known to the defendant
2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant ****; was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle ******;. These assertions indicate 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 facts are that the vehicle, registration ******, of which the Defendant was the hirer.
4. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.
5. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.
6. 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.
7. The defendant has been informed that the driver was required to make an emergency stop. The vehicle did not park, it merely stopped and turned around in a in an emergency, the vehicle was not parked at any point. In Jopson Vs. Homeguard, case no: B9GF0A9E, which had seen this appeal allowed, his honour Judge Harris QC mentions that stopping briefly is not parking. "19. The purported prohibition was upon "parking", and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time"
8. If it is the Claimant's case that the area is intended as a 'no stopping zone' then they cannot also offer parking at a price, if the landowner (Airport) in fact intends to prohibit stopping. If cars are never authorised to stop under any circumstances, then any breach would be a matter that falls firmly under the tort of trespass.
9. It is believed that the contract this Claimant has with the Airport limits the parking firm to act as agent of the Airport who remain the (known) principal, in which case only the Airport can sue, not the agent in their own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
10. The Protection of Freedoms act 2012 Schedule 4 states that the creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle if the driver is not known. However, Since PoFA cannot be used under byelaws, for contract-based parking tickets, only the driver could be held liable
11. This Claimant may try to persuade the court using the perverse decision in “VCS v Ward”, which can be fully distinguished and is far from persuasive when scrutinised. In that case, at appeal, the Defendant did not appear and the case reportedly ran completely against the interests of the victim consumer, such that the Judge even lamented the dreadful position he had been steered towards by this Claimant's legal representation, who, it seems, effectively ambushed the court with a case not first raised at the original hearing. In any event, the “VCS v Ward” case involved a business park and has no application to an Airport case, where the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit.
12. Airport approach roads are subject to road traffic enactments (public highway)
Even if the Claimant is able to overcome the difficulties they face in showing that:
(a) they have locus to sue in their own name regarding this location, and that
(b) they offered a parking space with value, and a licence to park there, and that
(c) the Defendant was afforded the opportunity to accept contractual terms and that
(d) these terms were prominently displayed and well lit, and that
(e) this charge (described by the Airport as a 'fine') is somehow saved from the penalty rule, and
(f) the driver was in breach, despite the stopping of the car being out of the driver's control,
the Claimant is also put to strict proof that:
(g) this access road is not part of the public highway. A 'public highway' is any road maintained by public expense where the public would normally have a right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. It is averred that the Airport approach road is public highway and the Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.
13. The road comes off a roundabout and is not clearly demarcated as private land, nor is it a private car park and thus, any parking/traffic contraventions would be a matter for the local authority. Such roads are subject to the rules of the Road Traffic Act and statutory instrument and any 'PCN' must be a proper penalty charge notice issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004.
14. The claimant is put to strict proof that this approach road is a part of 'the Airport' site where road traffic enactments do not apply.
15. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
Any help / advice would be appreciated!
0
Comments
-
With a Claim Issue Date of 27th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st July 2023 to file your Defence.
That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave the preparation of 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'.1 -
"A PCN was received for stopping on double red lines." - to whom? - as you state:-
"3. The facts are that the vehicle, registration ******, of which the Defendant was the hirer."0 -
I'd move this up to be one of the first paragraphs after you say you stopped in an emergency:
"the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit."You've chopped off the whole second half of the Template Defence, which means you haven't objected to the false added £70 'fee'. You need that but the wording can be brand new as this is such a big month for PPC victims!
Because your deadline for defence is at the end of July I'm going to tell you to wait a bit ...diarise an alert for, say, 28th July though - DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE!
This slight delay advice is important because there is now good reason to wait for defence submission till close to/at your deadline.
Sorry if it might look conflicting with the usual advice "not to leave it till the last minute"!
It's because we are now in July.
Your timing is perfect if the DLUHC in their Draft Impact Assessment (due in a couple of weeks) give us all some damning words to add! Things are changing quickly this Summer and as it's so close to the DLUHC's Announcement I would PREPARE the defence but hold off emailing it... not yet...
I will be changing the Template Defence to suit, this month.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Secondly have you tried a complaint to the Airport?
There are 2 threads where this Airport stepped in very recently and cancelled PCNs and the first thread includes the contact email. AND I think they were at court stage...PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks for this - I plan to add the second half of the template defence back in, I just removed to shorted for the moment!Coupon-mad said:I'd move this up to be one of the first paragraphs after you say you stopped in an emergency:
"the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit."You've chopped off the whole second half of the Template Defence, which means you haven't objected to the false added £70 'fee'. You need that but the wording can be brand new as this is such a big month for PPC victims!
Because your deadline for defence is at the end of July I'm going to tell you to wait a bit ...diarise an alert for, say, 28th July though - DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE!
This slight delay advice is important because there is now good reason to wait for defence submission till close to/at your deadline.
Sorry if it might look conflicting with the usual advice "not to leave it till the last minute"!
It's because we are now in July.
Your timing is perfect if the DLUHC in their Draft Impact Assessment (due in a couple of weeks) give us all some damning words to add! Things are changing quickly this Summer and as it's so close to the DLUHC's Announcement I would PREPARE the defence but hold off emailing it... not yet...
I will be changing the Template Defence to suit, this month.
I'll also look at the airport thread - thanks!
@1505grandad They sent me a PCN after they were in receipt of a hirer notification form.1 -
Thanks, I'll update today and get my defence in a position where I'm ready to just hit send, but will hold off doing that for a couple of weeks!Coupon-mad said:I'd move this up to be one of the first paragraphs after you say you stopped in an emergency:
"the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit."You've chopped off the whole second half of the Template Defence, which means you haven't objected to the false added £70 'fee'. You need that but the wording can be brand new as this is such a big month for PPC victims!
Because your deadline for defence is at the end of July I'm going to tell you to wait a bit ...diarise an alert for, say, 28th July though - DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE!
This slight delay advice is important because there is now good reason to wait for defence submission till close to/at your deadline.
Sorry if it might look conflicting with the usual advice "not to leave it till the last minute"!
It's because we are now in July.
Your timing is perfect if the DLUHC in their Draft Impact Assessment (due in a couple of weeks) give us all some damning words to add! Things are changing quickly this Summer and as it's so close to the DLUHC's Announcement I would PREPARE the defence but hold off emailing it... not yet...
I will be changing the Template Defence to suit, this month.1 -
Morning @coupon-mad I've had a good look around and can't see that the consultation has been published, is this still pending? Should I go ahead and submit my defence?Coupon-mad said:I'd move this up to be one of the first paragraphs after you say you stopped in an emergency:
"the byelaws lay the facts and rules out (very helpfully for the court, and fully in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015) that an emergency is a 'reasonable excuse' clearly anticipated by the Airport owners to be exempt conduct, and not a contravention at all. This Claimant has misapplied the byelaws rules and twisted them for their own profit."You've chopped off the whole second half of the Template Defence, which means you haven't objected to the false added £70 'fee'. You need that but the wording can be brand new as this is such a big month for PPC victims!
Because your deadline for defence is at the end of July I'm going to tell you to wait a bit ...diarise an alert for, say, 28th July though - DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE!
This slight delay advice is important because there is now good reason to wait for defence submission till close to/at your deadline.
Sorry if it might look conflicting with the usual advice "not to leave it till the last minute"!
It's because we are now in July.
Your timing is perfect if the DLUHC in their Draft Impact Assessment (due in a couple of weeks) give us all some damning words to add! Things are changing quickly this Summer and as it's so close to the DLUHC's Announcement I would PREPARE the defence but hold off emailing it... not yet...
I will be changing the Template Defence to suit, this month.0 -
You have a week, so do the same as this person:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80192159/#Comment_80192159
PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
Categories
- All Categories
- 347K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.7K Spending & Discounts
- 239.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 615.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175K Life & Family
- 252.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards