Vcs/bw legal county court claim form

Fimbaz · 23 April 2017 at 4:20PM

Brilliant, thanks Coupon-mad. Once we've got it finished, I'll post for any editing advice. Should I hide any details before I post?

Coupon-mad · 23 April 2017 at 4:36PM

Only your VRN if mentioning it. The defence does not have to start with your name/address/shoe size!

Fimbaz · 10 May 2017 at 2:28PM

Hi guys. Got a draft defence ready now, just wondered if anyone could give it a quick look over and see what changes need to be made. Thanks in advance...

As an unrepresented Litigant in Person with no legal knowledge or experience of court process, please excuse me if I fail to use the correct legal terms.
I was the registered keeper of the vehicle at the material time, but I was not the driver.

1) I state once again I was the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver at the time. Furthermore, The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) which came into force in October 2012 is the only legislation currently available allowing a private parking firm to hold a registered keeper liable. It can be seen the date of the alleged contravention is xx/07/2012, which predates the enactment of PoFA 2012. This being the case, the claimant cannot surely hold the registered keeper liable - only the driver - of which no evidence has been produced

2) Due to the significant time passed, and also due to the fact that I have many friends and family whom could have used my car, I am unable to specify who was driving the car at the time. Many insurance policies provide third party liability cover for policyholders to allow them to drive a vehicle belonging to someone else. Nor am I under any obligation to name a driver even if I knew who it was, which I do not.

3) It is wholly unreasonable for the claimant to wait 5 years before bringing this claim against the defendant. I submit that this is a deliberate tactic intended to make it as difficult as possible for the defendant to defend himself by asking him to recall specific details about an unremarkable event that happened to someone else on an unremarkable day, almost 5 years ago. I further submit that this allows the claimant to add 'maximum' interest, thereby unreasonably inflating their claim.

4) It is also unreasonable that - knowing that keepers could not be held liable for parking charges in 2012 anyway - that the Claimant asks the court for the right to claim statutory interest at 8% from date of incident (£52.44). The long delay is clearly the fault of the Claimant and should not be used as an excuse to effectively try double recovery.

5) In the pre-court stage the Claimant’s solicitor did send me a Letter of Claim but it did not comply with the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct. It was missing the following;
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which the claimant intends to rely

6) It is clear BW Legal have altered the charged in this case on their notice of County court claim issued. The figures are: Principal debt £120, interest £52.44, Court fees £25, Solicitors costs £104, giving £301.44 in total. On the actual court claim form, the figures are now: amount claimed £226.44, with the same court fees of £25 and legal costs of £50, giving the same total. How can the amounts of the principal debt alter?

7) The claimant may seek to rely on the case of Elliot v Loake and seek to persuade the court that this case created a precedent that amounts to a presumption that the registered keeper is the driver, with no evidence or admission to prove its allegations. In the Elliot v Loake case the finding that the keeper was the driver was based on the provision of forensic and other evidence, none of which has been presented here. Elliot v Loake was also a criminal case, which has no bearing on a civil matter.

8) The claimant may also seek to rely on the case of Parking Eye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) this case can be easily distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice was paramount, and Mr. Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85. None of this is applicable to this case. Additionally, of the Beavis case, the Judges held it was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

9) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details, nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCTS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA. From my research I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’. This is against the public interest, and demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant. I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10) I am yet to have knowledge of all documents provided to the court. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd and then to BW Legal, and no proof has been provided. With the absence of 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 of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

11) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons and I request the court strike out this claim for the reasons stated above.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Coupon-mad · 14 May 2017 at 12:55PM

You need to stick to this thread and delete the new one, please.

Fimbaz · 14 May 2017 at 3:42PM

Hi Coupon-Mad, apologies. Only started a new thread as I hadn't had any replies on this one when I posted it a few days ago, so I thought nobody had seen it. Will delete the other one now.

Coupon-mad · 14 May 2017 at 11:02PM

No-one had seen it but hope they will now.

keepswimming · 15 May 2017 at 10:20PM

read my thread for ideas, i ve fought these guys and won, even a link to dropbox with evidence you may find useful.

Fimbaz · 16 May 2017 at 4:34PM

Great, thanks keepswimming. Will check your stuff out now &#55357;&#56833;

Coupon-mad · 16 May 2017 at 8:41PM

Your defence draft covers the main bases. A good start, no worries about that.

I do like to include the fact that VCS an Excel are sister companies using essentially the same signs and documents, and that in 2012 Excel was one of several parking firms banned by the DVLA for a number of months, for stating that a keeper has any obligation to name the driver and/or that keepers could be held liable in law (pre-POFA, pre October 2012). The DVLA ban was imposed as a last resort sanction, because to mislead a keeper about liability was a 'significant breach' of the BPA Code of Practice'. VCS were known to be using almost exactly the same signs and documents as Excel used in 2011/2012.

It follows that for VCS to re-state that DVLA-prohibited argument now, about a pre-POFA case, is indicative of a complete disregard for the rights of consumers and contrary to the overriding objective in the CPR. To suggest that a keeper from Summer 2012 can be 'assumed' to have been the driver is unsupported in law and unsupported by the DVLA and the British Parking Association rules; this was again reiterated by parking law expert (PATAS and POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister Henry Greenslade in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 in a section about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' which can only arise under the POFA 2012 which is of course, not retrospective.

I would also mention that you also rely upon other cases decided on the same basis (some pre-POFA, some post-POFA) but all cases where VCS or Excel have not relied upon Schedule 4 of the POFA and cannot hold a keeper liable. Such as Excel v Lamoureux, which is Lamilad's transcript of his court decision:

http://nebula.wsimg.com/ab774da5f40c5d7082d483820e2241cb?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

Lamilad · 16 May 2017 at 11:09PM

This being the case, the claimant cannot [strike] surely[/strike] hold the registered keeper liable

Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd [strike]and to BW Legal, [/strike]

Vcs/bw legal county court claim form

Comments

Categories

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