Vehicle Control Services Limited - Defence advice

dan0292

Hi all,

Second time here after a successful defence in 2019 where I won against Vehicle Control Services Limited (co-incidentally).

This time round, I am the stage where I need to submit my defence, I have already done the AoS on MCOL.

I was 14 minutes over the free parking - according to the IPS Code of Practice, people should get 5 minutes 'consideration time' to read through the terms on the signage, and they should also get 10 minutes grace time... am I correct in pushing this in my defence in the personalised paragraphs as opposed to pushing the narrative that signage wasn't clear etc. as this could be seen as conflicting with each other?

I will post my draft defence shortly.

Thanks
Dan

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

LDast

It would help if you gave us the "issue" date of the claim and what the Particulars of Claim are. Is this a claim issued by VCS or are they using a solicitor to represent them?

dan0292

Apologies - Issue date is 30th July - so I believe I have until Sunday to submit my defence (I know I have left it late, this couldn't be helped) 

They are using ELMS Legal Limited to represent them

dan0292

and AoS was 12th August

KeithP

dan0292 said:

Issue date is 30th July - so I believe I have until Sunday to submit my defence 

dan0292 said:

and AoS was 12th August

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 2nd September 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

dan0292

Particulars of claim

The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendant's vehicle, *******, was identified in ************ on the **/12/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Parked for longer than the maximum period permitted. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land were clearly displayed was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

LDast

So, assume you knew nothing about the PCN until you received the claim form. Based on those PoC, defend the allegation. Remember that the burden of proof is on the claimant, not for you to give them all the detail that is missing in those PoC.

dan0292

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

 

 

3. The defendant acknowledges that they parked their vehicle at the date stated in the Particulars of Claim to use the shopping facilities at Southgate Retail Park.  The defendant was 14 minutes and 50 seconds over the time limit stated on the PCN.

In line with Code of Practice by the International Parking Community to which Vehicle Control Services are a member of, there should be 5 minutes ‘consideration time’ to read and agree to the terms and conditions laid out on their signage, and also a 10 minute grace period where Parking Charge Notices cannot be issued. This PCN would fall within this time period, and therefore no PCN should ever have been issued.

 

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

 

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

 

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

 

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

LDast

Maybe have a read of the IPC CoP and see exactly what they say about consideration and grace periods. I tis your defence. You must understand what you are pleading.

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/IPC%20Code%20of%20PracticeV9%20V4.pdf

You can also see if the new Joint CoP has any relevance except for signs:

https://irp.cdn-website.com/262226a6/files/uploaded/sector_single_Code_of_Practice_Version_1_140824.pdf

Coupon-mad

The defendant was 14 minutes and 50 seconds over the time limit stated on the PCN.

No you weren't!

DO NOT accept their timings which are merely the time of arrival and leaving.