VCS parking in restricted area & claim from from CCBC

I have redrafted defence, cut and amended where advised by other forum members and have attempted at adding in doctrine of de minimias at the end - please correct if I have not annotated it correctly. Also on point No 8 - the para in italics is referring to private car park - but as the alleged transgression occurred outside of the 'car park' should I still leave this sentence in or omit - I could have cut and pasted point 12 as advised by EN , can't claim to fully understand all the legal jargon but it sounds good!
FIRST DRAFT – VCS (XX/XX/2015)

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 XXXX, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, was on xx/xx/2015 parked on a public road leading to xxxxx. This does not meet the definition of 'relevant land' within the meaning set out in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

3. The Defendants vehicle was not parked at the location claimed by the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant has no cause of action. Furthermore, where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked is public land, over which the Claimant is unable to demonstrate any standing. Evidence of this will be provided in due course.

4. The place of the alleged transgression is given as "restricted area in a privately owned car park at xxx "which contains several 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. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant xxx was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle xxx; 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, paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of this claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7. 5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

6. The fact that this is not 'relevant land' means that a registered keeper cannot be held liable under the Protection Of Freedoms Act and there is no alternative rule of Law by which a registered keeper can be pursued, in the absence of evidence regarding the identity of the driver.

7. 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, notwithstanding that it is obscured by overgrowth at the entrance of XXX. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract, failing to set out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner for any person reading them.

8. 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. The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 02498820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. VCS were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it.

9. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the Protection of Freedoms Act and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver and as such, the Defendant believes that his personal details, have in this instance, been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant.

10. 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 and/or Agent, to issue parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation.

11. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as Practice Direction 16 7.5. No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate at xxxx as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice A 7.1 which states that If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have written authorisation from the Landowner and/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 aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the Landowner and/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. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
Civil Procedure Rule 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –

(a) Only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and

(b) Resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.

The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.
It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing:
The DJ stated:-

''IT IS ORDERED THAT The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

There are several options available within the Courts' case management powers to prevent vexatious litigants pursuing a wide range of individuals for matters which are near-identical, with meritless claims and artificially inflated costs. The Defendant is of the view that private parking firms operate as vexatious litigants and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to.

13. I refer to the Doctrine of de minimis and would question as to why, if such a transgression had occurred as claimed by VCS, why did VCS wait for FOUR years before deciding to follow through with their threats to commence court proceedings in respect of what they state is an ‘outstanding balance’?

I believe the facts contained in this defence are true.
Found 2 more photos that I will try and post up from 2015 - as on searching Google maps May 2014 and May 2016 (copies of which I have printed off for the defence) there are VCS signs located within the cobbled area in respect of the car park as both Google maps clearly show cars to be parked along the road, as the signs relate to the car park not the road.

[/url

Not sure I have mastered posting....
No parking at anytime VCS sign outside edge of Excel carpark - I believe there could have been 2 of those along there - second photo is the sign that has replace the No parking - advising about weather conditions but if you inside the car park you can't actually read that as sign facing the road!!!