Jump to content


VCS PCN Caimform - Car park: Berkeley Centre, Ecclesall RD, Sheffield, S11 8PN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1992 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Unless you are doing it whilst not logged in

Youve not viewed one orher private parking claimform thread..

 

Cag is selfhelp too

 

Use the search cag box of the top red toolbar

 

Vcs claimform

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who did you ask about planning consent?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification. I’ll search for that thread.

 

In the CPR request I asked the PCC for copies of any planning consents relating to the signage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, first off, you don't want the PPC (or anyone else) to actually respond to your CPR 31.14... Think about it :wink:

 

 

Also, you need to ask the council planning department (for the area where the parking occurred) what planning permission has been applied for and granted. Ask under planning regs and the advertising consent regs. The council will tell you the truth, a PPC will tell you that black is white :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now go back and read post 11 CAREFULLY again

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, first off, you don't want the PPC (or anyone else) to actually respond to your CPR 31.14... Think about it :wink:

 

Thanks, DragonFly1967. I will contact the Sheffield Planning Dept tomorrow morning. Great advice.

 

Yes, I realise that my interests are best served if the PCC doesn’t respond to the CPR 31.14.

 

What I was asking (see a couple of posts above) is whether I can claim that documents

(such as planning consents, contract with land owner and photographic evidence that I exceeded the parking time limit) don’t exist because, if they did, the PCC should have produced them.

 

They cannot now produce them as part of their case.

 

What do you think?

 

How can I best exploit the fact that they ignored a court procedure?

 

Now go back and read post 11 CAREFULLY again

 

Yes, thanks dx.

Point taken.

I’ll get onto it.

 

I was just hoping that the process could be sidestepped if the planning consent was now inadmissible in court and the PCC weren’t allowed to defend a claim that they had no planning permission anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As politely as i can say it

And ofcourse for the later people that read your thread

 

everyone follows the well oiled and tried and tested method used here to defeat almost every claim we get - do what we tell you when we tell you...

Each time you come to your thread re-read it from post 1

 

Dx

Edited by Andyorch
editing

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

everyone follows the well oiled and tried and tested method used here to defeat almost every claim we get - do what we tell you when we tell you...

Dx

 

I don’t mean to be rude and I am genuinely very grateful to you and everyone else who has offered me advice, but my problem is this:

 

I don’t fully understand what the tried and tested method is,

 

when I ask you a question you often answer with a riddle.

A symptom of my autism is that I like things to be black & white.

 

I’m going to ask the same question for a third time.

 

Please just give a straight forward answer.

Why have I been advised to submit a CPR 31:14 if everyone predicted that VCS would ignore it?

 

And how can their failure to respond be used to my advantage?

 

Is there any merit in any of the benefits I suggested above?

 

Thank you for your patience explaining this to me.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t mean to be rude and I am genuinely very grateful to you and everyone else who has offered me advice, but my problem is this:

 

I don’t fully understand what the tried and tested method is,

 

when I ask you a question you often answer with a riddle.

A symptom of my autism is that I like things to be black & white. - to be polite , whatever your issue is...we can deal with it...but don't use it as an excuse for not researching your issue...

I’m going to ask the same question for a third time.

 

Please just give a straight forward answer.

Why have I been advised to submit a CPR 31:14 if everyone predicted that VCS would ignore it? - yes if you read like threads you'll see this..it is a REQUEST, it is NOT [and cannot be a] DEMAND

 

And how can their failure to respond be used to my advantage? - that they cannot prove their claim

 

Is there any merit in any of the benefits I suggested above? - read like threads

 

Thank you for your patience explaining this to me.

 

 

Not being funny but....

CAGlink31.gif is also a self-help site

Unless you have done so whilst not logged in

You've not read ONE other like thread!

 

If i were really as green on this and thus worried about this as you seen be id be using my time reading up

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

failure to respond to a CPR 31.14 request places the onus on the claimant to produce all of the documents before the claim can be considered as not doing so places the defendant at a disadvantage and more importantly, what you are asking for is proof that VCS have the right to make a claim.

 

If they cant show they have a right then they dont have one.

Telling a judge this in your defence will mean that the first thing they will do is demand to see this proof or the case will be chucked out without further discussion.

 

It does happen and usually as what is called a Case Management Meeting, usually done by way of an order but sometimes a preliminary hearing or discussion in chambers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

 

Thank you ericsbrother. that is much clearer now.

 

I have some more information.

 

Firstly,

I spoke to someone in the Sheffield Planning Dept,

who was very supportive,

but massively overworked.

 

Apparently she is presently the only staff in the dept.

She was also once caught by VCS and paid them!

 

There is no planning permission for signage,

although she thinks the small signs don't require it.

 

Browsing through their online archive I found an application back in 2004 for a "non illuminated freestanding name sign" which was refused!

 

The archive doesn't go back far enough to see the original permission for the retail development and the woman wasn't able to do a search while i waited, so I couldn't check for Planning Conditions attached to that Consent relating specifically to parking.

 

I could make a formal request for a planning search but I wouldn't receive the results before the Judgement date.

 

The land owner is Henderson Property Fund and the estate is managed by Lambert Hampton Smith.

I spoke to someone from Lambert H.S. who told me that VCS's contract is with the landowner, but serviced by them.

When I asked specific questions about the contract, they referred me to the landowner.

 

I now have some photos of the entrance and exit of the carpark, taken by a family member who is local, but they are of limited use.

I was hoping for notes relating to dimensions, positions, visibility, etc.

 

They are going back to take some more pictures and make notes.

 

 

Also,

Unless you are doing it whilst not logged in

Youve not viewed one orher private parking claimform thread..

 

I have spent many hours researching/actioning this issue, both on CAG and elsewhere.

 

I work 25 hour long shifts and, because of this, much of my research time has been at work on the office computer.

 

I tend to only log in when I submit a reply.

 

I don't want anyone to think I expect CAG to hand me this on a plate, with no effort on my part.

 

My many questions are partly as a result of information overload. :-)

Pictures of Berkeley Precinct.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right,

they DO need PP as it isnt applicable for "deemed consent" because of the content.

 

Read up on the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act on a document linked to the parking pranksters blogspot and web page.

It is written by a retired lawyer and very thorough.

 

You will use that info to damn them when they say they dont need permission due to deemed consent and size of signage etc when they do.

Also if their signs are so small as to be exempt how the hell are you supposed to read them whilst driving past?

 

that is also part of why you need to know their position and size so you can show that they are impossible to read when entering the land and thus that makes any contractual offer on them void due to illegibility.

A passenger might stand a hope of catching a glimpse but they arent being offered anything.

 

also need to be able to read the small print which cant be read at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have spent many hours researching/actioning this issue, both on CAG and elsewhere.

I work 25 hour long shifts and, because of this, much of my research time has been at work on the office computer.

I tend to only log in when I submit a reply.

I don't want anyone to think I expect CAG to hand me this on a plate, with no effort on my part.

My many questions are partly as a result of information overload. :-)

 

probably the latter then,.....well done :lol:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those (smaller) parking signs still look bigger than 0.3²M to me, but it's difficult to tell from a picture.

 

But regardless, even if they don't need specific planning permission, that massive car parking sign at the entrance most certainly does! And without that, it won't matter whether the other signs have planning permission or were placed there via divine intervention. The whole scheme doesn't comply with planning regulations. :thumb:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone.

I have a draft defence to submit.

It's very long.

 

The more research I do, the more I find that might be relevant.

 

Some of it I only loosely understand. Would anyone like to look it over and offer any comments? Thanks guys.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Attachment removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as a Defence Skeleton Argument...is this a Defence or a Skeleton Argument ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

post it as text in a msg box here so we can read and edit please

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys

 

Andyorch - Thanks for pointing out the silly mistake. :-)

 

Lookinforinfo - yes, that’s better.

 

Dx - I’m on a long shift at work. Will sort that out when everything goes quiet overnight. Will definitely have it posted as text for everyone before the morning.

 

Any other comments gratefully accepted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my defence. I have made a number of changes since I posted the PDF version earlier today. I've added a couple of arguments and made the it clearer and easier to understand, I hope. I would be grateful if one of the Site Team could remove the earlier version from post 43.

 

 

Defence

 

This claim is denied in its entirety. I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all, for the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant's case.

 

i. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies

ii. The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist

iii. The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges)

Regulations 2013 applies

iv. The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

v. The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable

penalty

vi. The claimant has failed to meet the ‘notice to keeper’ obligations of Schedule 4 of

the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

 

 

 

i) The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 applies

 

1. It is asserted that the Claimant’s charges are unlawful, as they are in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, specifically regulation 8(1) of the Regulations and article 6(1) of the Unfair Terms Directive (in providing that an unfair term is not to be binding on the consumer), which is to redress the imbalance between the contracting parties’ bargaining power, and to re-establish equality between them, so that the contract terms which bind the parties are such as the parties would have agreed if they had negotiated the contract on equal terms.

 

2. The European Court of Justice case of Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya, Tarragona I Manresa [2013] 3 CMLR 5 provides authority for this, and it is submitted that European Court of Justice decisions must be taken judicial notice of by lower courts in England and Wales. The test for unfairness and imbalance in that case is as follows (para 77);

 

Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that:

 

– the concept of ‘significant imbalance’ to the detriment of the consumer must be assessed in the light of an analysis of the rules of national law applicable in the absence of any agreement between the parties, in order to determine whether, and if so to what extent, the contract places the consumer in a less favourable legal situation than that provided for by the national law in force. To that end, an assessment of the legal situation of that consumer having regard to the means at his disposal, under national law, to prevent continued use of unfair terms, should also be carried out;

 

– in order to assess whether the imbalance arises ‘contrary to the requirement of good faith’, it must be determined whether the seller or supplier, dealing fairly and equitably with the consumer, could reasonably assume that the consumer would have agreed to the term concerned in individual contract negotiations.

 

3. It is asserted that no reasonable person, of whatever means, would willingly agree to pay a charge of £100 as a consequence of staying over free time, if they had the opportunity to negotiate the contract on equal terms with the other contracting party.

 

4. It is asserted that any competent solicitor would have negotiated the charge to be equal to a genuine pre-estimate of loss, being the normal legal situation provided for by the national law in force. In the case of ParkingEye v Beavis, a fair charge in the original hearing was judged to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued.

 

5. The Claimant relies on the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However, in that case the court applied the wrong test for imbalance (para 34 and also para 37, 38)

 

The judge […] held that the term did not cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations because the charge was no greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park.

 

6. It is submitted that the European Court of Justice definition of imbalance must take precedence.

 

7. However, in any case the instant case is not saved from being unfair by Beavis. In this particular location, council charges for overstay are £50 discounted to £25, not £100. As the charge is 100% greater than that which a motorist could expect to pay for overstaying in a municipal car park there is a clear imbalance.

 

8. Regulation 7 of UTCCR 1999 may also apply depending on the words of the signage.

 

 

ii) The signage does not offer a contract with the motorist

 

9. The claim is for breach of contract. However, it is denied any contract existed.

 

10. The sign itself says you have to read the other signs for the contractual terms and that means it is not offering a contract but an invitation to treat and that means the driver can fail to accept the terms of the subsequent offer and still park there. The other signs are small and in high locations and not easily readable from any distance. They are not illuminated so may not be legible at night.

 

11. The large entrance sign does not appear to have a planning consent. A planning search of Sheffield City Council’s planning register could not find a planning consent for signage. Any sign which might be too small to require planning consent, would also be too small to be obvious to a driver entering the car park. A CPR 34.14 application was sent to the claimant asking them to show copies of planning consents relating to signage, but VCS chose not to respond, despite receipt of the request being signed for.

 

12. The signage is not obvious. While it is accepted there is a large sign at the entrance to the car park, it is on the passenger side of the entrance and is directly opposite a much larger, more colourful sign on the driver’s side which attracts the driver’s attention away from VCS’s sign. VCS’s sign is positioned in such a way that traffic approaching from the Easterly direction, as my car would have been, cannot see the front of the sign until actually negotiating the turn into car park, at which point it would be dangerous to read, even were it seen.

 

13. The Claimant states, in their Particulars of Claim, that the signage is ‘displayed in prominent locations’ but this is not agreed. Thus, the necessary elements of offer and acceptance to form a contract were not present. Although the Claimant has not provided a signage map, many of the signs are positioned in such a way as may create ‘entrapment zones’ where signage is not clearly visible. The Claimant is put strictly to proof that this is not the case on this site.

 

14. The driver in this case was completely unaware of the time restrictions at this car park. Since ANPR cameras are, by their nature, automatic it would be reasonable for any user knowing of the time restrictions, to expect to be definitely pursued by VCS for payment. The fact that the car exceeded the time restrictions, especially considering the size of the sum that would be sought, is evidence in itself that the driver did not know of the restrictions. However noticeable the Claimant believes their signs to be, if they genuinely went unnoticed they were, by definition, not noticeable enough.

 

15. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have therefore not been satisfied and so no contract can exist.

 

 

iii) The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 applies

 

16. Any alleged contract would be a distance contract for services as defined in The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

 

17. The regulations define three types of contracts; distance contracts, on premises contract and off-premises contracts.

 

18. The definitions concern themselves with how a contract is commenced (and in particular if face to face contact occurs during this process) and not where the contract is eventually performed. Thus, if a consumer books a hair styling appointment over the web, that is a distance contract even though they go to the salon for the actual styling. If they re-book at the salon, that will be an on-premises contract. If they meet their stylist in Tesco, arrange for an appointment and immediately phone the salon to confirm, that will be an off-premises contract. All these contracts are performed on-premises, but commenced in different ways.

 

19. The regulations define an on-premises contract as:

on-premises contract” means a contract between a trader and a consumer which is neither a distance contract nor an off-premises contract;

 

20. Thus a contract cannot be on-premises if it is a distance contract. The regulations define a distance contract as:

“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded;

 

21. This is clearly an organised service-provision scheme (for parking). The contract is clearly commenced without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer. There is clearly the exclusive use of one means of distance communication (signage) up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded.

 

22. This is therefore a distance contract.

 

23. None of the exemptions in regulation (6) apply. No vending machine or automated premises was used to commence the contract. Any contract would be formed by parking and walking away.

 

24. Regulation 13 lists information to be provided before making a distance contract. The alleged contract fails to provide the required information listed in Schedule 2 or a means to have a copy of the contract on a durable medium. Accordingly, 13.1 states the contract is not binding on the consumer.

 

 

iv) The Claimant has no standing to bring a case

 

25. The retail outlet’s own sign states that the land is ‘managed by Lambert Hampton Smith’, who are therefore acting as agents for the landowner, Henderson Property Fund. VCS therefore are acting as agents for the agents for the landowner.

 

26. In the Letter Before Action and the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant’s makes no mention of any contract between them and the landowner. This means that the landlord is unlikely to have assigned to VCS the right to make money from suing people in their own name and VCS have no locus standi in this respect. It is believed the wording on the sign contains shows that the Claimant is acting as a sub-agent of the landowner, not the principal.

 

27. A CPR 34.14 application was sent to the claimant asking to show copies of their contract with the landowner rather than his agent, but VCS chose not to respond, despite receipt of the request being signed for. It is therefore assumed that no such contract exists.

 

28. Any consideration to the motorist of a grant of parking space flows from the landowner; the signage is believed to have an implied clause that, ‘Parking is at the absolute discretion of the Landowner’. There is no consideration from the motorist as parking is free.

 

29. If VCS deny acting as an agent then they are put to strict proof by disclosing the appropriate parts of their contact with the landowner.

 

30. Fairlie v Fenton establishes the situation regarding agency.

 

a. If the agent is acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal, they can sue and be

sued

b. If the agent is acting on behalf of a named principal, they cannot sue

c. If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal whose name is not disclosed, then

they can only sue if they assume the risk; in other words, if they can be sued if

they fail to uphold their part of the bargain.

 

This case is clearly ©.

 

31. VCS therefore have no standing to bring this case. Only the landowner has the right to do this.

 

32. VCS’s main entrance sign says that you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the other, smaller, less legible signs if you stay there for more than 10 minutes. That makes this claim a claim for a contractual charge but they are suing for breach of contract, which is different.

 

v) The charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is therefore an unenforceable penalty

 

33. The claim is for breach of contract. In such cases, it is trite law that any charge is intended to put the recipient back in the position they would have been in had the breach not occurred. If the charge is larger, as in this case, then it is a penalty and the whole charge is unenforceable. Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

 

34. As previously explained, the parking charge amount is due to the landowner, not the claimant. The Claimant collects it on the landowner’s behalf. The Claimant has suffered no actual, or genuine pre-estimate of, loss as a result of any alleged overstay. There is no initial loss to the Claimant, and they have no standing to bring any case.

 

35. In any case, all costs are due to the cost of enforcement, which was established in ParkingEye v Beavis to be an average of around £18 per ticket issued. These can therefore be mitigated by VCS taking no action. The charge of £100 is primarily intended as a deterrent. It is, therefore, an unenforceable penalty.

 

36. The charge for breach of contract may be collected on behalf of the landowner, however, all costs for issuing tickets are borne by VCS. The landowner therefore suffers no loss at all. This bizarre business arrangement means that there is no cause of action.

 

37. The Claimant may rely on the ruling of ParkingEye v Beavis, held in the court of appeal in February 2015. However, the circumstances of that case were materially different. The Beavis case related to a Pay & Display car park where the signs were clear and the private parking company paid £10k a month to be there, so there was a commercial justification for their claims. Each case must turn on its own fact and the facts of that case are very different to this.

 

38. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the Court of Appeal ruled that if a charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss it could nevertheless be saved as a penalty if (i) there was social justification, and (ii) the charge was no more than was needed to deter, which was established by comparison with council charges at that site.

 

39. In ParkingEye v Beavis, the social justification was because the car park was in a town centre near to a railway station and so might be abused by commuters who stayed all day. Additionally it was alleged that retailers would suffer if motorists stayed longer than allowed, and other motorists would not be able to find a space when they wanted to shop. VCS has not established any social justification in this particular case.

 

40. In this case equivalent council fines are £25 rising to £50 after 14 days. In comparison to this, the sum demanded is clearly far more than that needed to deter, far more than genuine losses, and is therefore disproportionate.

 

41. Additionally the sum is roughly equivalent to a week’s state pension or around two days of take-home pay at minimum wage earnings. It is therefore a huge sum, completely disproportionate to the costs involved in any overstay.

 

vi) The claimant has failed to meet the ‘notice to keeper’ obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

 

42. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Such a notice was not received by the defendant within 14 days of the parking event or at any time since and no ticket or communication was left on the windscreen. The Claimant did not give the registered keeper opportunity, at any point, to identify the driver. They are therefore put to strict proof that such a notice was issued, by provided a signature of receipt or a copy of the notice.

 

43. Similarly, the Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise, that the car was parked within the carpark for a period exceeding that requested by their signs. The Particulars of Claim offer no evidence and, in fact, state no parking times at all.

 

44. It is anticipated that VCS may claim that both photographic evidence and a POFA Schedule 4 Notice has previously been issued, even if it hasn’t been received. A CPR 34.14 application was therefore sent to the claimant asking to show all copies of any early correspondence between them and the Defendant which the Claimant may subsequently refer to in their case, but VCS chose not to respond, despite receipt of the request being signed for. It is therefore assumed that no such evidence or Notice exists.

 

45. Henry Greenslade, lead adjudicator of POPLA in 2015 and an eminent barrister and parking law expert, stated that “However keeper information is obtained, there is no reasonable presumption in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.”

 

46. Due to the length of time since the event occurred (around ten months) the Defendant has little to no recollection of the day in question. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 10 months later. The vehicle is, at times, driven by other family members. The burden rests with the Claimant to identify the driver, who is the only party potentially liable in cases where a parking firm is unable to rely upon the POFA.

 

 

If Judgement is made in favour of the Claimant, I would respectfully point out that the Protection of Freedoms Act, 2012, does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the amount originally invoiced from the keeper. He cannot recover additional expenses, so the maximum charge should not exceed £100.

 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FAR FAR too much

stick simply to our usual 2 line defence

you don't need to go into why things are wrong

only point that they are under xxx

you don't need to ref xxx

that's for your witness statement IF the case ever gets that far.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK dx. Do you mean like this?

 

 

“The Defendant denies the allegations in the Particulars of Claim.

 

The Defendant does not believe that Vehicle Control Services has a contract with the landowner that assigns the rights to enter into contract with the public and make claims in their own name and has failed to show otherwise by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

The defendant further believes that the claimant does not have the necessary planning permissions, under the Town & Country Act 2007, for their cameras and signage at this site and the claimant has failed to show these authorities by way of a CPR 31.14 request.

 

It is believed by the Defendant that no contract has been formed between him and the Claimant and that, consequently, no breach of that contract can have occurred. “

 

 

I had 6 grounds in my detailed defence, but the ones above seem to be the ones that everyone is using. Do I need to title it ‘skeleton defence’ to show that I have other arguments to offer if goes to court?

 

I’ve also noticed that you have often advised submitting the defence at the last moment. Why is this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are learning …..less is more

it wont hurt to file a day early on mcol

 

you don't need to title it anything

you simply copy and paste that into the box on mcol

 

as I said before

everything else is for your witness statement IF it goes that far

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

" Do I need to title it ‘skeleton defence’ "

 

Again ...no such thing exists.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...