Leeds/Bradford Airport Parking Charge

Alumb05

Coupon-mad said:

Alumb05 said:

Claim form

Just adding the claim form for context.

I wouldn't put any of that, which admits stopping where the driver shouldn't for a full minute. Drivers CANNOT stop on double reds on roadways. Was the area double red lines?

That is the right defence but instead of that para 3, add this and then add these detailed paragraphs, as shown below. Then re-number the original para 4 onwards from the template, not removing any of it:

Vehicle Control Services Limited 

(Claimant) 

- and - 

************* 

 (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 but was not the driver. The Claimant knows from their images that the driver was male and cannot be this Defendant.

3. Being legally represented, the Claimant and their supposed 'super-user' bulk litigation monster (DCB Legal) both know, or should know, that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) limited - not universal -  right to 'keeper liability' does not legally apply at Airports. The signatory has said this case against the keeper is "pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4". The signatory, under a statement of truth, has deliberately or negligently misled the court in the POC about a law that only applies to 'relevant land' which they know full well, Airport roads are not.

4. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant register keeper cannot be held liable and is under no obligation to name the driver in a private 'parking' case, and no adverse inferences can be drawn. Airport land is not 'relevant land' as it is already covered by statutory bylaws and so is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under the POFA Schedule 4. As the registered keeper, the Defendant is not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land. Even if it did, Schedule 4 caps the 'maximum sum that can be recovered from a keeper' at the PCN sum only, not an extortionate £170.

5. This Claimant cannot invoke 'keeper liability' and have simply aimed a speculative claim at a registered keeper which is wholly unreasonable conduct in a case where they know they cannot rely upon the provisions of the POFA. Outwith the POFA Schedule 4, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases involving this same notorious serial litigating Claimant and their sister ex-wheelclamper firm (Excel Parking). These appeal case transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

5(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed.

5.(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan held at 35.1:

"The finding I make is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to bring in keeper liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could not be established.  If this were not the case car parking companies could simply have obtained the details of the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see whether or not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence of a positive defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an approach, it would have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper, to identify the driver or at least set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility himself. In my judgment that was not the position before ... [the POFA] ... was in force;  35.2.  my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and  35.3.  it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..."

6.  Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.  In the extant case, this Claimant has launched 'roboclaim' cut & paste proceedings saying that the Defendant was 'keeper and/or driver' and disingenuously and wholly unreasonably citing the PoFA 2012. They have then waited to see if the registered keeper has the nous to research the POFA and to meaningfully defend, or if they could gain an enhanced quantum default CCJ (as happens in up to 90% of small claims). It's a lucrative gamble with the odds of unjust enrichment heavily weighted in parking operators' favour, but this is plainly an abuse of the court process.  This baseless claim demonstrates precisely the behaviour that HHJ Gargan identified in 35.1. This claim has no basis in law and neither the court nor the Defendant should be troubled with a hearing.

7. Turning to the rest of the woefully inadequate POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued" to the vehicle on the date alleged. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land and keepers - even where liability exists - cannot be pursued for that amount of money) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.


(rest of template renumbered)

,Thanks, i really appreciate that!  

It wasn't red lines, it was a yellow box with yellow cris-cross lines, i guess that doesn't make much difference though??

Alumb05

Defence has been emailed. 

Do I need to do anything on the Money Claim Website where it states to 'Continue Defence'?

Le_Kirk

Alumb05 said:

Defence has been emailed. 

Do I need to do anything on the Money Claim Website where it states to 'Continue Defence'?

Absolutely NOT! That would destroy all the formatting and truncate whatever you put in there. Do not put anything not even a full stop in that defence box.

Alumb05

Hi, UPDATE.......

I've had a letter from DCB Legal stating that they are writing to inform me that their client intends to proceed with the claim.  It then goes on to state that the client may be prepared to settle the case and i should contact them within 7 days.  I ignored it anyway and the 7 days lapsed a while ago.  I'm assuming that this is another scare tactic and they are trying to get a some money out of us still before court.  I was a little surprised as the defendant is clearly not the driver of the car and they must know this.  Is there a new loophole that now allows them to win in court against the registered keeper of the car even though they were not driving?

Following this letter,  i then got a 'Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track' letter. It states that i need to complete the 'Small Claims Directions Questionnaire' (Form N180) and file it with the court office.  I need to get this done asap as the deadline is this week.  Does this mean that we are definitely going to court or can they still back out?

Thanks again for all the advice so far!!

DE_612183

they will still ( almost definitely ) discontinue - but make sure you follow the steps and they don't get awarded a win by default....

Coupon-mad

Alumb05 said:

Hi, UPDATE.......

I've had a letter from DCB Legal stating that they are writing to inform me that their client intends to proceed with the claim.  It then goes on to state that the client may be prepared to settle the case and i should contact them within 7 days.  I ignored it anyway and the 7 days lapsed a while ago.  I'm assuming that this is another scare tactic and they are trying to get a some money out of us still before court.  I was a little surprised as the defendant is clearly not the driver of the car and they must know this.  Is there a new loophole that now allows them to win in court against the registered keeper of the car even though they were not driving?

Following this letter,  i then got a 'Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track' letter. It states that i need to complete the 'Small Claims Directions Questionnaire' (Form N180) and file it with the court office.  I need to get this done asap as the deadline is this week.

Does this mean that we are definitely going to court 

No.

Why not read a few completed cases in @Umkomaas' DCB Legal discontinuances thread, over 575 of these cases showing you exactly when they discontinue (except if it's an Excel or multi-PCN case).

However I see your case is by VCS - Excel's sister firm - so it's fifty fifty whether the hearing will go ahead. Might well do.