BW Legal for VCS county court claim

In the County Court Business Centre
Claim Number: E8DP25C4
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
vs
Djdamo (Defendant)

___________________________________________________________________________

DEFENCE
___________________________________________________________________________


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 Defendant's vehicle was never parked at the location claimed by the Claimant, and therefore the Claimant has no cause of action. Furthermore, where the Defendants vehicle was parked is public land, over which the Claimant is unable to demonstrate any standing as the land is controlled by a Traffic Regulation Order. Evidence of this will be provided at hearing.

The Defendant's vehicle was parked on Langdon Road directly opposite the entrance to the car park at SA1 where the claimant claims the vehicle was parked. 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.

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 "breaching the car park terms and conditions" but no terms are given nor is any valid breach established.

4. The place of the alleged breach is given as "restricted area in a privately owned car park at Sa1" 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. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to enforce a parking charge notice against the Defendant (or at all) where they are not the owner or occupier of any land around the SA1 development. If the Claimant alleges that there is a legal entitlement to issue parking charge notices at the development, they are put to strict proof both as to the existence of that document and as to whether it is enforceable in light of the applicable statutory regime at paragraph 1 aforesaid.

6. No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this breach despite the Defendant'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's costs.

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

9. The claimant's notices attempt to make a forbidding offer, which is not 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 has failed to comply with the relevant practice directions at CPR Part 16 and, in particular, the relevant practice directions, prejudicing his ability to prepare a full and detailed defence. The Defendant reserves the right to add to or amend to his Defence if further information and/or a re-pleading of the Claimant's case occurs becomes available only after the statements of case are finalised.

12. Whilst PD7C Para 1.4(3A) exempts the Claimant is not required to serve a separate contract with the Particulars of Claim (as would normally be required in accordance with PD16 7.3), the Defendant contends that there is no proper basis for failing to set out the terms of any parking contract within the Particulars of Claim. The written parking contract is, presumably, limited to the limited wording that existed on any signage. This information is required in order that the claim can be properly understood.

13. PD16 Para 7.5 provides that where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done. The Claimant has failed to do so. This is critical in understanding whether the Claimant seeks to bring claims under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) or against the driver and the standards of proof which the Claimant will need to meet. The Particulars as drawn are vague and non specific.

The facts stated in this defence are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed,

Djdamo
10/04/2018