Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Anto_28

Debszzzz2 said:

Why do you keep calling the defendants "parking attendant" a "patrol officer"? They are certainly no "officer" of anything. Calling them an officer accords them a title to which they are not entitled or worthy.

Calling him/her an "officer" creates a misleading impression of their authority and responsibilities. "Parking attendant" describes their role as an employee or agent of an unregulated private parking company.

I think its just me keeping things consistent between their log etc.

I'll make sure I refer to him as a "parking attendant" at the hearing, not sure it changes the core facts of the case too much however.

Debszzzz2

I'd do a find & replace of every occurrence of "patrol officer" to "parking attendant" so as to make sure that anyone reading the defence or WS doesn't get the impression that you were dealing with someone who conveyed a sense of respect or professionalism.

Anto_28

The defence and WS are already filed.

I trust that Judges arnt daft, and will know that the VCS self labelled 'officer' is just a parking attendant 

Anto_28

Updated Skeleton, not long until my hearing next week 😬

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD                                  Claim No. XXXXXXX

BETWEEN

 

MR XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

- and -

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

 

 

SKELETON ARGUMENT FOR THE CLAIMANT

 

 

Introduction

1.      By his claim form, dated 30/10/2023, the Claimant brings a claim for non-material damages after he suffered stress and anxiety arising from the Defendant’s continuous processing and sharing of his personal data by the Defendant, its servants, and its agents.

2.      The Defendant has advanced a part 20 counter claim against the Claimant, claiming they are owed damages for an alleged parking contravention on 15/06/2023.

Summary of Claimant’s position

3.      A permit was displayed, which was visible through the front windscreen.

4.      The Claimant had a right to park his vehicle at the location in question. For clarity, this is 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.

5.      If the permit was unclear (it is accepted that it was not placed directly in the windscreen on the dashboard) such period was limited in time.

6.      There is no evidence before the Court that the Claimant’s vehicle was observed by the parking attendant in situ for a period beyond 30 minutes ('the free period') for which no permit is required.

7.      A permit was produced to the parking attendant on site. No PCN had been issued at the point when the parking attendant saw the permit in full and spoke to the Claimant.

8.      The decision to obtain data from the DVLA regardless of the facts was made some days later and that decision was unlawful.

9.      The Defendant had no 'reasonable cause' as required by DVLA KADOE.

10.   The Defendant now seeks £170 in relation to the failure to display a permit clearly, notwithstanding a permit was produced promptly and more than 48hrs prior to a PCN being issued. The claimant will contend that this is sufficient to amount to a penalty.

11.   Whilst the Defendant relies on Beavis, the ratio of that decision is clear. The terms imposing a PCN engage the penalty rule. Accordingly, if the imposition of the charge is disproportionate to the breach the PCN is capable of being a penalty.

12.   The Defendant are in breach of their own contract with the landowner (which required windscreen PCNs). None of the Defendant company’s terms require that permits be displayed “upon the windscreen”.

13.   The Defendant’s counter claim is an abuse of process and the inclusion of a further £70 of costs amount to double recovery.

14.   The distinguishing features of this case are:

a.     Parking at the site is not accessible to the public. It has barrier entry requiring an access code to enter.

b.     That the Defendant was shown a permit at the material time (within minutes of first seeing the car) and therefore knew there was no legitimate reason to pursue the Claimant, well before the Defendant decided to obtain data from the DVLA. Any period of breach is de minimis.

c.     That the Defendant had issued a permit authorising the Claimant to park 24/7 on site.

d.     That the parking attendant must have seen previously a permit in the Claimant’s distinctive bright green vehicle (and it follows had actual knowledge of) the driver having a permit.

e.     That the Defendant has incurred no financial loss.

f.      That the Defendant has no legitimate purpose in issuing a PCN where the Claimant was a permitted driver, had not overstayed and the Defendant is not reliant upon the PCN as a sole revenue stream.

The Defendants witness statement

15.  The witness statement submitted by the Defendant is of Mr Jake Burgess, an Associate Legal Executive for the Defendant, not the parking attendant on the day of the alleged contravention. It contains statements made not of first hand witness evidence and further statements made on pure speculation and not fact.

16.  The witness statement is a recitation of the Defence and other documents and is not a consideration of the facts as they occurred. See JD Wetherspoon v Harris.

17.  The Defendant has not served factual evidence from the one person able to give evidence regarding the permit at the point it was first seen, the parking attendant Mr Scott Taylor, whom is their employee.

18.  The Defendant was put on notice in the Reply to Defence that evidence should be adduced, and the parking attendant in question made available.

19.  As the parking attendant is their employee they know where he is and can both obtain a statement and make him available. They have previously emailed him with no difficulty as evidenced in Exhibit AH08 of the Claimant’s witness statement. It follows that there has been a conscious decision not to present his evidence to the court.

20.  The court is asked to draw an inference from their failure to adduce that evidence. See for example:
Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet
Wisniewski v Manchester NHS

Outline

(a) Material facts

(b) Relevant legal principles

(c) Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government

as per my earlier post.

Anto_28

Schedule of costs draft

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD                                  Claim No. XXXXXX

BETWEEN

 

MR XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

- and -

 

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

 

 

CLAIMANT’S SCHEDULE OF COSTS

 

 

Ordinary costs

Court issue fee: £70.00

Hearing fee: £85.00

Loss of leave through attendance at court hearing: £95.00

Further costs for Defendant’s misconduct, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 44-47

Research, preparation and drafting documents (14 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19 per hour): £266.00

Stationary, printing, photocopying, and postage: £8.50

Return mileage from home address to Court (5 miles x £0.45): £2.25

TOTAL COSTS CLAIMED: £526.75

 

Signed

Trainerman

Para 11 of the 'skelly'. should that not be 'rationale', not 'ratio' ??

Anto_28

Trainerman said:

Para 11 of the 'skelly'. should that not be 'rationale', not 'ratio' ??

urm, not sure. I'll be honest, I took Johnersh's post and modified it slightly.

Johnersh said:

6. Whilst the Defendant relies on Beavis, the ratio of that decision is clear. The terms imposing a PCN engage the penalty rule. Accordingly if the imposition of the charge is disproportionate to the breach the PCN is capable of being a penalty.

A quick Google suggests Ratio is the correct word

"Ratio" typically refers to the legal principle or rule that forms the basis of a court's decision in a particular case. It represents the essential reasoning or logic behind the judgment.

Trainerman

Ahh ok. I would always defer to Johnersh. He is a lawyer and I am not. That will be my bit of education for the day !

Johnersh

Ok. Alert. The skelly should always provide to the key paras of the judgments and can quote them if needed (with hard copies brought to the hearing)

No lengthy recitation of facts is necessary. The issues are straightforward and well covered elsewhere.  This is a summary of the legal argument.

The o/p will need to look at those paras pasted in and understand them. No-one should be reproducing stuff without understanding it - or at least doing some serious Google. Else they'll get crucified when asked to explain/flesh them out in oral argument.

Anto_28

Johnersh said:

Ok. Alert. The skelly should always provide to the key paras of the judgments and can quote them if needed (with hard copies brought to the hearing)

No lengthy recitation of facts is necessary. The issues are straightforward and well covered elsewhere.  This is a summary of the legal argument.

The o/p will need to look at those paras pasted in and understand them. No-one should be reproducing stuff without understanding it - or at least doing some serious Google. Else they'll get crucified when asked to explain/flesh them out in oral argument.

I’ll remove the Material facts section.

The paragraphs I’ve got ready to highlight (and more importantly I fully understand) that are printed to be included with the skelly are

ParkingEye v Beavis

32, 98, 100, 193, 198

ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores

419-428

Excel v Wilkinson

16-36, 39-40, 44

Simon Clay v CEL

21, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30

VCS vs Robert Ferguson

11-12, 17-19

Wetherspoon v Harris

33, 38 & 39