DCBLegal VCS Court Hearing - Bristol Airport Hilton

Car1980

Please start your own fresh thread. Thanks.

Gr1pr

At Bobbyboushay

Please start your own new thread as per the forum rules here, in order to receive bespoke targeted advice 

Thank you 

mamapapa12

here is the order:

BEFORE DJ BOSMAN sitting in the County Court at Yeovil

UPON hearing Solicitor’s Agent for the Claimant AND UPON Defendant in attendance

UPON defendant having a good reason for the judgment to be set aside

IT IS ORDERED THAT

• 1. The judgment dated 17/03/2025 against the Defendant is hereby set aside.
  

• 2. The Defendant shall file and serve a Defence by 4pm on 03 November 2025.
  

• 3. The Claimant shall file and serve, if so advised, a Reply to Defence by 4pm on 17 November 2025.
  

• 4. Both the Parties shall file and serve a Directions Questionnaire by 4pm on 1 December 2025.
  

• 5. No Order as to Costs.

mamapapa12

I'm drafting a WS including vcs vs Edward and Excel vs Smith and vcs vs Carr.

I guess I can include £19/hr for my time? coming up to 30+ hours 

doubledotcom

Not yet. you have to file a defence first. Your WS can come later, especially after you've seen theirs first.

Gr1pr

As above,  the court order is about filing a defence by Monday,  3rd November, nothing is mentioned about filing a WS or costs order,  not yet anyway.   Stick to the process

mamapapa12

Ok thanks! 

How does this look? Hoping to send it tomorrow:

---

DEFENCE

In the county court at Yeovil.

Claim No: 

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
and

---

1. Introduction

1.1 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

1.2 The Claimant alleges that a vehicle registered to the Defendant was “stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at Bristol Airport. The Defendant denies any breach of contract, and further denies that the Claimant has established any contractual or proprietary right to issue and enforce charges on the land in question.

---

2. Landowner Authority and Jurisdiction

2.1 The Claimant has provided no evidence of a contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner or occupier giving it authority to issue or enforce parking charges at the exact location alleged.

2.2 The Claimant’s own plan and photographic evidence are ambiguous. The area in question lies adjacent to the Hilton Hotel, which is separated by barriers. This indicates that the area photographed is outside the Claimant’s jurisdiction.

2.3 The signage faces the main road rather than the entrance, and a barrier directly ahead of the signage implies that the area beyond the barrier — not before it — is controlled by the Claimant. This ambiguity renders any alleged contractual terms unclear and unenforceable.

2.4 It is standard practice for a driver to briefly turn around in such circumstances. There is no proof that the vehicle was stationary in breach of any rule. The Claimant has produced only two still images, 22 seconds apart, which do not demonstrate that the vehicle was stopped or that any contravention occurred.

2.5 The Defendant requested video evidence multiple times, but none has been provided. The absence of such evidence casts serious doubt on the veracity of the Claimant’s allegations.

2.6 The claim is therefore factually weak and without merit, and it would be unjust for the Court to uphold a claim founded on such uncertain evidence.

---

3. Airport Bylaws and Non-Relevant Land

3.1 The location is subject to Bristol Airport bylaws, and therefore constitutes “non-relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

3.2 The Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as keeper, as POFA keeper liability provisions do not apply on land governed by statutory bylaws.

3.3 The Claimant has not identified the driver, and the Defendant makes no admission as to who was driving.

3.4 The Claimant’s reliance on private contract law to override airport bylaws is legally misconceived, as confirmed in VCS v Edward (Stockport County Court, 2018) and Excel v Smith (Sheffield County Court, 2017), both of which held that airport or council bylaw areas are exempt from POFA and not subject to private parking enforcement.

---

4. Procedural Irregularities

4.1 The claim form was not properly served. It was originally sent to an outdated address, leading to a default judgment that was later set aside.

4.2 The Claimant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in verifying the correct address, contrary to the principles in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where improper service due to address neglect was deemed defective.

4.3 Under CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be validly served within four months of issue. As this claim was never properly served within that period, it is now expired and should be struck out.

---

5. Improper or Unauthorised Claim Signature

5.1 The Defendant has not yet been provided with a copy of the original claim form but notes that Vehicle Control Services claims issued around November 2024 were frequently signed by non-solicitors, including individuals such as Sarah Ensall.

5.2 If this claim was similarly signed, it would amount to a breach of the Legal Services Act 2007, as reaffirmed in Mazur v Speechlys LLP (2025), where the Court held that unauthorised signing of claim forms constituted improper conduct.

5.3 The Defendant reserves the right to rely on this authority once disclosure of the claim form is made.

---

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Claimant has failed to establish:

• any lawful authority over the land;
• any valid contractual offer or acceptance;
• any credible proof of stopping;
• any right to pursue keeper liability; and
• any procedural compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

6.2 The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed in full, and that the Court consider awarding the Defendant’s costs of attendance pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

---

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: _________________________
Name:
Dated: _________________________

Le_Kirk

That statement of truth is out of date, the latest one is much longer.

Coupon-mad

mamapapa12 said:

Ok thanks! 

How does this look? Hoping to send it tomorrow:

---

DEFENCE

In the county court at Yeovil.

Claim No: 

Between:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
and

---

1. Introduction

1.1 The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim.

1.2 The Claimant alleges that a vehicle registered to the Defendant was “stopped in a zone where stopping is prohibited” at Bristol Airport. The Defendant denies any breach of contract, and further denies that the Claimant has established any contractual or proprietary right to issue and enforce charges on the land in question.

---

2. Landowner Authority and Jurisdiction

2.1 The Claimant has provided no evidence of a contemporaneous written agreement with the landowner or occupier giving it authority to issue or enforce parking charges at the exact location alleged.

2.2 The Claimant’s own plan and photographic evidence are ambiguous. The area in question lies adjacent to the Hilton Hotel, which is separated by barriers. This indicates that the area photographed is outside the Claimant’s jurisdiction.

2.3 The signage faces the main road rather than the entrance, and a barrier directly ahead of the signage implies that the area beyond the barrier — not before it — is controlled by the Claimant. This ambiguity renders any alleged contractual terms unclear and unenforceable.

2.4 It is standard practice for a driver to briefly turn around in such circumstances. There is no proof that the vehicle was stationary in breach of any rule. The Claimant has produced only two still images, 22 seconds apart, which do not demonstrate that the vehicle was stopped or that any contravention occurred.

2.5 The Defendant requested video evidence multiple times, but none has been provided. The absence of such evidence casts serious doubt on the veracity of the Claimant’s allegations.

2.6 The claim is therefore factually weak and without merit, and it would be unjust for the Court to uphold a claim founded on such uncertain evidence.

---

3. Airport Bylaws and Non-Relevant Land

3.1 The location is subject to Bristol Airport bylaws, and therefore constitutes “non-relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).

3.2 The Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as keeper, as POFA keeper liability provisions do not apply on land governed by statutory bylaws.

3.3 The Claimant has not identified the driver, and the Defendant makes no admission as to who was driving.

3.4 The Claimant’s reliance on private contract law to override airport bylaws is legally misconceived, as confirmed in VCS v Edward (Stockport County Court, 2018) and Excel v Smith (Sheffield County Court, 2017), both of which held that airport or council bylaw areas are exempt from POFA and not subject to private parking enforcement.

---

4. Procedural Irregularities

4.1 The claim form was not properly served. It was originally sent to an outdated address, leading to a default judgment that was later set aside.

4.2 The Claimant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in verifying the correct address, contrary to the principles in VCS Ltd v Carr (CA-2024-001179, Court of Appeal, 4 March 2025), where improper service due to address neglect was deemed defective.

4.3 Under CPR 7.5(1), a claim form must be validly served within four months of issue. As this claim was never properly served within that period, it is now expired and should be struck out.

---

5. Improper or Unauthorised Claim Signature

5.1 The Defendant has not yet been provided with a copy of the original claim form but notes that Vehicle Control Services claims issued around November 2024 were frequently signed by non-solicitors, including individuals such as Sarah Ensall.

5.2 If this claim was similarly signed, it would amount to a breach of the Legal Services Act 2007, as reaffirmed in Mazur v Speechlys LLP (2025), where the Court held that unauthorised signing of claim forms constituted improper conduct.

5.3 The Defendant reserves the right to rely on this authority once disclosure of the claim form is made.

---

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Claimant has failed to establish:

• any lawful authority over the land;
• any valid contractual offer or acceptance;
• any credible proof of stopping;
• any right to pursue keeper liability; and
• any procedural compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules.

6.2 The Defendant respectfully requests that the claim be dismissed in full, and that the Court consider awarding the Defendant’s costs of attendance pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g), on the basis of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

---

Statement of Truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Signed: _________________________
Name:
Dated: _________________________

Not sure why you didn't use the template defence already written for you but I hope you got this signed & dated and filed & served last week?