BW Legal for VCS county court claim

It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle noted at the date of alleged breaches. However, the claimant has no cause of action against the defendant on the following grounds: -

1. The claimant has no basis or authority to issue a claim against the defendant, therefore no cause of action. The Defendant's vehicle was parked on Langdon Road directly opposite the entrance to the car park at SA1. Langdon road is under Swansea City Control according to the Swansea SA1 Waterfront Traffic Regulation Order Scheme which came into effect on Friday 19th May 2014. This land isn't relevant and therefore keeper liability cannot be claimed. The claimant is not the landowner nor have a contract for the location the vehicle was parked.

2. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the POFA and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event.

3. The Claimant alleges that parking charges notices were given for !!!8220;breaching the car park terms and conditions!!!8221; but no terms are given nor is any valid breach established.

4. The place of the alleged breach is given as !!!8220;restricted area in a car privately owned car park at Sa1!!!8221; which contains many registered parcels of land as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.

5. Vehicle Control Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of any land around the SA1 development. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier, I have reasonable belief that they do not have authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

6. No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this breach despite the Defendant!!!8217;s direct request on appeal dated 17/06/2016 and acknowledged by the claimant on 20/09/2016

7. PoFA 2012 only allows the recovery of the parking charge stated on the Notice to Keeper and not court fees, damages, indemnity costs or legal representative!!!8217;s costs.

8. No contract, terms and conditions or sum payable were never accepted by any driver.

9. The claimant!!!8217;s notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which isn!!!8217;t an offer at all, therefore no contract exists.

10. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of the claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

11. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice A7.1 which says that if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.

12. The Defendant believes that his personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio).
The facts stated in this defence are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signed,