Help with Defence / VCS

Shinjuku · 18 August 2019 at 9:05AM

Hi all,

Apologies up front as I've left this to pretty much the last minute. My Issue date was the 17th July 2019, so by my reckoning I've only got until tomorrow to file a defence.

The facts:
The car was parked behind a sign for "permit holders only" for a local leisure centre which was a raised pavement.
This pavement does not belong to the leisure centre but instead to a block of flats adjacent to the car park for the leisure centre.
The VCS sign for the flats was behind where the car was parked.
The driver had obtained a permit from the leisure centre to park as believed that parking directly behind this sign would also be included in the parking spaces for the leisure centre.

I've been reading quite a lot of defences but can't find something that quite fits for me. I don't want my defence to essentially boil down to "the driver didn't see that sign because it was dark" so is there anything that can help?

Thanks so much and once again apologies that this is last minute!

Shinjuku · 18 August 2019 at 9:35AM

I've drafted a defence, any advice would be greatly appreciated!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

CLAIM No: xxxxxxxxxx

BETWEEN:

VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

________________________________________
DEFENCE
________________________________________

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The facts are that the vehicle, registration xxxxxxxx, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, was parked in the ‘free to use’ car park at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

3. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s). The vehicle has more the one driver and the claimant has not provided any evidence as to who was driving. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

4. Should the Claimant attempt to rely yet again on the irrelevant case of CPS Ltd v AJH Films Ltd, in an attempt to suggest to a Court that a driver 'acts on behalf of' an individual consumer registered keeper, using their well-documented and twisted interpretation of the law of agency, the Defendant points out that that there can be no agent/principal relationship between individual drivers and keepers in a family.

5. Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.
6. Further and in the alternative, the defendant complied with alternative terms set out by a sign from “Civil Enforcement Ltd” as this sign was directly in front of where the Keepers car was parked, leading to the assumption that the land this sign was on was also covered by the terms set out on the sign and not terms set out on the sign by the Claimant which was set much further back.
7. It is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. They merely state that vehicles must be parked correctly within their allocated parking bay, giving no definition of the term 'correctly parked', nor indicating which bays are allocated to whom.

8. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

10. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date

Quentin · 18 August 2019 at 9:55AM

Did you do an AOS,?

Shinjuku · 18 August 2019 at 9:56AM

Yes, I did an AOS.

Le_Kirk · 18 August 2019 at 10:43AM

In your OP, you mention VCS yet in your defence you say Civil Enforcement Ltd. This is confusing unless there were two signs, in which case, this needs to be made clear. Perhaps in your point 2, you can make the point about the two signs, the fact that it was free to park but you also went and got a permit from the leisure centre.

Shinjuku · 18 August 2019 at 11:22AM

Yes, there were two signs. One from CE (who "look after" the parking for the leisure centre, where although it is free to park you have to get a permit from CE to make it free to park) and one from VCS who look after the parking for the flats.

I mention in para 6 that there are two signs, do i need to move that point up my defence?

The_Deep · 18 August 2019 at 11:29AM

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk · 18 August 2019 at 11:31AM

Shinjuku wrote: »

Yes, there were two signs. One from CE (who "look after" the parking for the leisure centre, where although it is free to park you have to get a permit from CE to make it free to park) and one from VCS who look after the parking for the flats.

I mention in para 6 that there are two signs, do i need to move that point up my defence?

Perhaps you need to make it clear that you are talking about a second sign in your point 6, if I can be misled, maybe a judge would be similarly confused.

Shinjuku · 18 August 2019 at 11:42AM

Ok, thank you.

I've reworded that:

6. Further and in the alternative, there were two signs within close proximity to where the vehicle was parked. One sign from Civil Enforcement Ltd which was directly in front of where the vehicle was parked pertaining to parking within the terms set out by the leisure facility, and another sign approximately 2 metres to the rear of the car from the Claimant which was affixed to the side of building. As such, the driver would assume that parking directly behind the sign from Civil Enforcement Ltd would cover the driver to those terms as this sign is on the same land that the vehicle was parked on.

KeithP · 18 August 2019 at 8:00PM

You are right with your target date.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th July, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2019 to file your Defence.

When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:

Sign it and date it.
Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Help with Defence / VCS

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free