Do I have a defence? - Claim Form Received

Camex3000

Good Afternoon All, 

I have received a claim form against two PCN's from 2018, from Vehicle Control Services, with debt recovery from DCBL. 

Sorry for the length, I have tried to include all relevant details. 

Apologies further if this / similar has been covered before. I have tried to read all I can on the forum and find anything similar but not sure if I have a justifiable defence whereas others seem to, having had permits, having paid for parking etc. 

As per the newbies thread I have submitted my acknowledgement of service. - 

• A claim was issued against you on 21/07/2023
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/08/2023 at 15:56:04
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/08/2023 at 01:05:32

Based on this I believe I can submit a defence until 23rd August? Not that I plan to leave it until then. 

In my case, I parked on a strip of land outside my workplace, that VCS ticketed people on, being late and no other parking being available nearby. I was wrongly informed by my manager that nothing would come of this with others also parking here. The area is shown in red below with spaces alongside the road.



With this I received the PCN's on my car at the time, with them having signage as per the below: 


I believe I received correspondence at the time but after around 5 years of nothing, received a notice of debt recovery letter from DCBL, dated 14th April 2023 for PCN's dated 05/02/2018 and 12/03/2018. I ignored this and received a further 'letter of claim' dated 16th June 2023. 

I have always ignored all correspondence, now realising this was probably the wrong thing to do. I've since requested a SAR to VCS and informed DCBL as per the newbies thread but only done this following the Claim Form being received so not sure if this is too late. 

I also received another PCN at the time (2018) and ended up paying this after receiving a claim form not being aware of this forum / being worried about my credit. I think this was around £160/180. Not sure if this helps me as I think I read they need to claim for all outstanding PCN's at the same time? 

Due to paying this and not hearing anything for approximately 5 years, I assumed this was all settled and within the last year, shredded all the correspondence from back then. 

Other than this, my other thinking is: 

• I don't believe they ticket this same area any more with their being new signage from euro car parks and some of the signage, as per the above image, is now covered by overgrown hedges / trees (Have images of this if needs be). I don't believe it was covered at the time of the PCN's. 
• I have evidence of other vehicles having parked there in recent times and not receiving a ticket. Not sure how relevant as new euro car parks signage talks to ANPR being in place.
• They have added on an additional £155.56 from the debt letters to the claim form being received, with a further £50 for Court fee and then another further £50.00 for legal representative's costs.

The total amount on the claim form is as below: 

- Amount claimed: £475.56 (£160 per PCN and the additional £155.56 mentioned)
- Court fee: £50.00 
- Legal representatives costs: £50.00
- Total amount: £575.56

The Particulars of Claim states 'AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £320 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.04 until judgement of sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees.' 

I'm not sure how the maths works on the interest but can't see how it adds up to the additional £155.56 and how can they justifiably add this having not provided any correspondence to me about this in 5 years?

Based on the above I'm not sure if I have a legal defence and what I would state for paragraph 3 of the defence template and further the witness statement. Is it worth fighting this? 

Any help / advice would be greatly appreciated. 
Many thanks. 

Coupon-mad

It was too late to email DCBLegal as the case obviously can't be put 'in hold' now.  Easy to defend though.

You've got a strong case and LOADS you can add to paragraph 3 and will probably need more paragraphs!

- unclear signs

- Henderson v Henderson defence.

 Search the forum for those words. Copy...

KeithP

Camex3000 said:

• A claim was issued against you on 21/07/2023
• Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/08/2023 at 15:56:04
• Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/08/2023 at 01:05:32

Based on this I believe I can submit a defence until 23rd August? Not that I plan to leave it until then. 

Hello and welcome.

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

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 23rd August 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over two 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'.

Camex3000

Thank you both @Coupon-mad @KeithP. I shall do more research based on what you've said and look to build my defence. Cheers! 

Camex3000

Good Evening, 

I was wondering if anyone would help in reviewing my defence in relation to the above ahead of me submitting this. I haven't included any of the template wording in the below. Please see below where I am at as it stands.  

The facts known to the Defendant:

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

3. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them, in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position, set back from the road, that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily, and it being unclear and confusing where the private land stated in the signage starts and finishes. The Defendant believes that the Claimants signage within the carpark at the above location does not comply with the AOS CoP. The AOS CoP requires that signage stating terms and conditions “[…] must be conspicuous and legible” (Clause 18.3). It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

4. The Defendant believes that the Claimants entrance signage at the location in question does not comply with the British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice version 7 January 2018 which was in effect at the time of the alleged offence (AOS CoP). The AOS CoP requires that entrance signage be situated in such a manner that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.” (AOS CoP Appendix B – Entrance Signs”. At the location in question, there is no clear entrance and signage is located alongside the road, requiring the driver to turn their head to the left or right to read this, depending on direction of travel. When driving into the private land area this is therefore not clear and obvious and was hidden from the Defendants view by the vehicle being driven at the time.

5. There has been other similar claim(s) filed by the Claimant to the Defendant, relating to PCN's at the same address. The Defendant paid the Claimant at the time following a claim form being received with the Defendant being worried about their credit rating and being unaware of civil law and legal proceedings. Payment of £185.00 was made to the Claimant by the Defendant on 28 June 2018.

6.  It is the Defendants strong belief that the Claimant is purposefully abusing the court process to their own ends by submitting multiple claims for same circumstance PCN’s all of which they would have been aware. The Defendant believes they do this to bombard any defendant with multiple claim forms to have to acknowledge service, submit defence statements, witness statements and prepare cases for, in the hope that defendants, who mostly have no knowledge of civil law, will give up or that claims will ‘slip through the net’.

7. Authorities to support the Defendant's position that the subsequent claims are all estopped are:

a. Arnold V National Westminster Bank PLC [1991] 3 ALL ER 41. The court noted that ‘....cause of action estoppel applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties, or their privies and involving the same subject matter’. This case involves the same Claimant and Defendant, The same vehicle, The same location and the same manner in which the PCN was issued.

b. In Henderson v Henderson [1843]67 ER 313 The court noted the following…’when a matter becomes subject to litigation, i) the parties are required to advance their whole case, ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to reopen the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence or error.

8. By filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop further claims beyond the first where the cause of action is substantially the same.

*Further templated detail added below from here. 

@Coupon-mad thanks again for your earlier assistance. Where you've mentioned I've loads I can add to paragraph 3, is there anything else you'd touch on here? 

I'm not sure how relevant earlier points I've mentioned would be to my defence such as believing the area is no longer managed by VCS, evidence of other vehicles being parked here recently with no tickets being physically issued, additional amounts being added and not hearing anything on this for approx 5 years. Would any of this make any difference. 

Also apologies to all / @KeithP I acknowledge I've left this pretty late with life getting in the way (job change / holiday). 

Any help would be much appreciated. 

Many thanks. 

KeithP

You use the abbreviation 'AOS CoP' twice in paragraph 3, but it is not until the next paragraph - paragraph 4 - that you explain that 'AOS CoP' stands for 'British Parking Association Approved Operator Scheme’s Code of Practice version 7 January 2018'.

Apart from that, the parking operator Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not members of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme and are thus not bound by British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. They are instead members of the International Parking Community's Accredited Operator Scheme.

So quoting from the BPA's CoP is not appropriate.

Camex3000

Thank you again @KeithP, the advice so far has been a great help. I have now updated my defence to take into account that VCS are members of IPC and with it looking like @Coupon-mad's template has been adapted slightly since I copied this yesterday afternoon.  ** @Coupon-mad with this, not sure you're aware, if it is intended and if this would be better put to you in that thread but it looks like the word 'not' has been repeated twice within paragraph 19. 

My updated defence is as below. Would you now say this is suitable taking the above into account and is there anything else you'd mention as part of this? 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims with the same POC that this claim sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegation, making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. It is denied that the Claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them, in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position, set back from the road, that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily, and it being unclear and confusing where the private land stated in the signage starts and finishes. The Defendant believes that the Claimants signage at the location does not comply with the International Parking Community Code of Practice (IPC CoP). The IPC CoP requires “ The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place” (Clause 8.1). It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

4. The Defendant believes that the Claimants signage at the location in question does not comply with ‘Schedule 1 – Signage’ of the IPC CoP, which requires that “The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign”. At the location in question, there is no clear entrance and signage is located alongside the road, requiring the driver to turn their head to the left or right to read this, depending on direction of travel. When driving into the private land area this is therefore not clear and obvious and was hidden from the Defendants view by the vehicle being driven at the time.

5. There has been other similar claim(s) filed by the Claimant to the Defendant, relating to PCN's at the same address. The Defendant paid the Claimant at the time following a claim form being received with the Defendant being worried about their credit rating and being unaware of civil law and legal proceedings. Payment of £185.00 was made to the Claimant by the Defendant on 28 June 2018.

6.  It is the Defendants strong belief that the Claimant is purposefully abusing the court process to their own ends by submitting multiple claims for same circumstance PCN’s all of which they would have been aware. The Defendant believes they do this to bombard any defendant with multiple claim forms to have to acknowledge service, submit defence statements, witness statements and prepare cases for, in the hope that defendants, who mostly have no knowledge of civil law, will give up or that claims will ‘slip through the net’.

7. Authorities to support the Defendant's position that the subsequent claims are all estopped are:

a. Arnold V National Westminster Bank PLC [1991] 3 ALL ER 41. The court noted that ‘....cause of action estoppel applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties, or their privies and involving the same subject matter’. This case involves the same Claimant and Defendant, The same vehicle, The same location and the same manner in which the PCN was issued.

b. In Henderson v Henderson [1843]67 ER 313 The court noted the following…’when a matter becomes subject to litigation, i) the parties are required to advance their whole case, ii) the Court will not permit the same parties to reopen the same subject of litigation regarding matters which should have been advanced in the earlier litigation, but were not owing to negligence, inadvertence or error.

8. By filing the first claim and failing to advance the whole case at that time, any cause of action was immediately extinguished for any other similar fact Parking Charges against the Defendant. The courts may estop further claims beyond the first where the cause of action is substantially the same.

Many thanks. 

Coupon-mad

Good spot about the extra 'not'!  Removed it.

Good defence!  I would add to the last sentence in paragraph 5:

and the Defendant believed that the litigation was settled by paying the sum claimed.

Camex3000

Great thank you, recommendation added. 

Thank you both again for the extensive advice on the forum and to me.