Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 1:58 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 1Thanks
    LouisStrange
    Defence Drafted: VCS CCBC Claim Form
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 19, 1:58 PM
    Defence Drafted: VCS CCBC Claim Form 13th Jun 19 at 1:58 PM
    Hi,

    Summary
    1. VCS CCBC Claim Form received
    2. 'Claim is for breach of contract - parking in private land'
    3. 'Parked without valid ticket / permit'
    4. 'At all material times defendant was registered keeper and / or driver'

    Fully understand the next step is to acknowledge service - will progress.

    I've not been able to locate any information that answers the questions I have.

    The claim fails to provide
    1. Details of the 'contract'
    2. Any supporting evidence
    3. No picture of the vehicle
    4. No information on the driver

    Is this a solid basis for a defense? especially no pictures

    Thanks
    Last edited by LouisStrange; 13-07-2019 at 6:06 PM. Reason: spelling
Page 1
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jun 19, 2:09 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:09 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:09 PM
    Hi and welcome.

    What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?
    .
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 2:28 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:28 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:28 PM
    June the 12th
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jun 19, 2:31 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:31 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:31 PM
    With a Claim Issue Date of 12th June, you have until Monday 1st July to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox file linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread. About ten minutes work - no thinking required.

    Having done the AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th July 2019 to file your Defence.

    That's over a month away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. 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'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
    8. 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.
    .
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 2:39 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    • #5
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:39 PM
    • #5
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:39 PM
    Thanks - I capture all that from the forum.

    It was the question I had that I couldn't find an answer to - can you help on that?
    • Jomot
    • By Jomot 13th Jun 19, 2:56 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 32 Thanks
    Jomot
    • #6
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:56 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Jun 19, 2:56 PM
    VCS/Excel never properly plead their claims, but evidence / photo's come later, with the witness statement.

    If you read through the some previous Excel/VCS posts you'll get the idea.
    • tboo
    • By tboo 13th Jun 19, 4:43 PM
    • 993 Posts
    • 4,693 Thanks
    tboo
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 19, 4:43 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Jun 19, 4:43 PM
    The claim fails to provide
    1. Details of the 'contract'
    2. Any supporting evidence
    3. No picture of the vehicle
    4. No information on the driver
    Originally posted by LouisStrange

    1,and 2 - They will supply them at a later date

    3- If it was ANPR then they don't need to supply evidence of the car

    4 - How do you think they know who the driver was, unless you told them
    “You’re only here for a short visit.
    Don’t hurry, don't worry and be sure to smell the flowers along the way.”
    Walter Hagen


    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 5:33 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    • #8
    • 13th Jun 19, 5:33 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Jun 19, 5:33 PM
    I don’t believe there was ANPR - this was a residents, gated car park, with key fob access. The resident was in the car and used their key fob for entry.

    I don’t think they know, as there has been no communication from this side
    Last edited by LouisStrange; 13-06-2019 at 5:36 PM.
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 5:35 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 19, 5:35 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Jun 19, 5:35 PM
    Is it worth doing a SAR?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 13th Jun 19, 5:36 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    Is it worth doing a SAR?
    Originally posted by LouisStrange
    Well yes, why would you not do a SAR?
    .
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 5:49 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    The Newbie thread suggests this as a course of action of the back of LBA.

    It occurred to me that there is still more than 30 days to file a defence, so still worth submitting a SAR
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 13th Jun 19, 6:41 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    SAR submitted
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 19, 6:57 PM
    • 76,555 Posts
    • 89,892 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    A SAR is well worth it when defending claims, as it can help your defence if the data & photos arrive promptly, and if not, then seeing their hand helps at your later Witness Statement stage.

    You cannot get these two from a SAR:

    Details of the 'contract'
    Any supporting evidence
    As tboo says they will be supplied later with their WS.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 30th Jun 19, 5:06 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    Hi,

    I’ve looked around the forum for a thread that matches this scenario but am unable to find one.

    Scenario
    -key fob entry car park
    -driver was a guest of a resident
    -resident was in the vehicle
    -resident used their key fob to enter the car park

    Can you point me in the direct of a similar scnario thread please?

    Thanks in advance
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 30th Jun 19, 9:05 PM
    • 17,898 Posts
    • 21,810 Thanks
    KeithP
    There are over a dozen Defence examples linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread.

    One of those is about a key fob resident's car park.
    Ctrl+F on that thread with those bold words will easily find it.

    There is a link to the NEWBIES thread - twice in fact - in my earlier post.
    .
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 1st Jul 19, 12:53 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    Hi,

    Thanks for your response. As stated, I have read the examples.

    The driver in this instance is not the resident - the driver is a guest of a resident.

    Are there any examples that fit this scenario?

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Jul 19, 2:12 PM
    • 76,555 Posts
    • 89,892 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, search residential defence visitor or similar. Use your imagination and search.

    Use bargepole's defence as the base, and end it with the words I wrote in beamerguy's Abuse of Process thread, to kick out at the fake added 'costs' even if a case is lost, at least you know the arguments to peg the alleged 'contractual' recoverable sum to £100.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Jul 19, 2:22 PM
    • 5,679 Posts
    • 7,255 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Yes, because the scenario is the same as if it were the tenant, really. Presuming they have permission, and the tenatn has rights to allow vehicles to park there, then this right can be offered to other vehicles
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 12th Jul 19, 12:38 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    First DRAFT - blanks to be filled in (left empty to keep anonymity)

    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    Claim No.: XXXXXXXX
    Between
    [NAME OF PARKING COMPANY]
    (Claimant)

    -and-


    [NAME OF DEFENDANT]
    (Defendant)



    DEFENCE

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

    2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on [DATE]. The particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates 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.

    3. The Particulars refer to the material location as '[LOCATION]'. The Defendant was a guest of a tenant who had, between [DATE] and [DATE], held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

    4. The car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

    5. Under the terms of the lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.

    5.1. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

    6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

    8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

    8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

    8.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

    9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

    10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

    11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £160, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

    12. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

    12.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.



    Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous


    - CPR 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 oftruth 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:
    ''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 recover.


    Statement of Truth:

    I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.


    Name

    Signature


    Date
    Last edited by LouisStrange; 12-07-2019 at 12:47 PM.
    • LouisStrange
    • By LouisStrange 12th Jul 19, 12:49 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    LouisStrange
    Question: It is assumed the the Claimant has a contract with managing agents - that is not proven

    Should that be called out somewhere?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,612Posts Today

7,092Users online

Martin's Twitter