Hi everyone, Looking for support and advise on the following:
In Nov 2019 I received a 'letter before claim' from VCS regarding a parking notice for a shared family vehicle that was registered to me. This was the first documentation I have received about this 'offence' dated back in Dec 2016. I have no idea who was driving the vehicle at the time and I have since sold the vehicle and moved address. I requested from VCS a copy of the NTK and photographic evidence of the date/time, vehicle, signage etc but they only responded with some closeup pictures of the vehicle. Nothing showing a notice was left on the vehicle, the signage in the area nor any copies of any documentation. I have since visited the land in question and it is a badly kept piece of land with one sign facing in the wrong direction to the entrance, however, VCS have sent nothing showing the signage that was present 3 years ago. I have now received a court claim and immediately sent the acknowledge of receipt. I have read through lots of posts and I am preparing my defence and hoped I could get some feedback on the following before I submit:
IN THE COUNTY COURT
CLAIM No: *******
BETWEEN:
VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES (Claimant)
-and-
***********r (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 *******, of which the Defendant was the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this claimant, to be parked on the material date on a piece of spare land, not on any yellow lines nor causing an obstruction.
2.1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper in a yellow/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. The driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
2.2. Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.
3. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. 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. The defendant received no ‘Notice to driver or Notice to keeper documentation. The defendant moved address in February 2018.
4. The defendant requested a copy of the ‘Notice to driver’, ‘Notice to keeper’ , photographic evidence of the area parked and signage, and a copy of the contract between claimant and landlord.
5. The defendant only provided closeup photos of the front and rear of the vehicle and has not sent any documentation to the claimant as requested.
6. 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.
7. Further and in the alternative, 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. The current signage at the land is inadequate and the claimant has provided no evidence of the signage in effect on the date of the parking charge.
7.1. At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass.
7.2. County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.
8. 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 pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.
8.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.
8.2. It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.
9. The POFA, 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.
10. 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
