CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL/ VCR

kechai_2k

In the County Court  

CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE 

  

Claim No: [XXXXXX] 

Between: [VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED] (Claimant) 

And 

[MY NAME] (Defendant) 

  

Defence 

  

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. 

The facts known to the Defendant: 

3. The Defendant recalls, to the best of their knowledge, visiting the Travelodge on the day in question. The Defendant also parked at the Travelodge Powis Street Pay Car Park and made payment for a three-hour duration. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement. 

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. 

KeithP

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?

kechai_2k

Yes.KeithP said:

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?

yes. 03/09

kechai_2k

kechai_2k said:

In the County Court  

CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE 

  

Claim No: [XXXXXX] 

Between: [VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED] (Claimant) 

And 

[MY NAME] (Defendant) 

  

Defence 

  

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. 

The facts known to the Defendant: 

3. The Defendant recalls, to the best of their knowledge, visiting the Travelodge on the day in question. The Defendant also parked at the Travelodge Powis Street Pay Car Park and made payment for a three-hour duration. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement. 

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. 

I believe am ready to send this out through the email. I have numbered the pages, formatted and converted to PDF.

Coupon-mad

  Yes. 

SpinninginInfinity

Hi op,

I'm sorry to hear what you've been through.

Hope you dont mind me posting on this as I successfully defended a case st the Powis Street site several years ago. It took me five years , but they folded at the court claim stage. 

At that point it was Excel bringing the claim. Excel and VCS are related  but seperate legal entities.

4.1 is interesting. VCS should have responded to your appeal as per the BPA Code of Practice. I'd be sending an e-mail to their solicitors stating your intention to lodge a complaint with the BPA unless the claim is terminated.  Mention you bringing a counterclaim on the unfair processing of data and it's consequent effect on your mental and physical health.

It's very unlikely that Travelodge own that land. I went in there once and they said the car park was "nothing to do with them". You can use the land registry to locate the identity of the owner. Only the owner or someone with the authority of the owner can bring a claim.

Have you got a photo of the signage at the main pay point?, middle right of car park When last I looked it stated that ' you're entering a contract with vehicle control services' This is despite the Excel symbol being plastered across the sign and throughout the carpark. 

Worth submitting  a Subject Access Request (SAR) to VCS and DCB to get as much back ground information on the case as possible.

Best of luck and take care

SII

kechai_2k

  I actually got this email today with N180 (Directional Questionnaire) attached.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

Coupon-mad

Normal but you know that from the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

See you in 2025 for WS stage because everything in between is standard and fully covered in the two sticky threads.

kechai_2k

Meaning I do not have to do anything about their email at this stage until 2 months or thereabout?

kechai_2k

Please, I have a question. I was trying to file the N180 but am a bit confused on how to file it to the claimant. Should I file it by replying that their treat email that comes with their N180?