Jump to content

_Ray_

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Pasting my proposed defence below - it is due on Monday, but I'm away all weekend so I will have to submit it tomorrow. Thank you to all the people on the forum who contributed on all the other posts that allowed me to 'borrow' all of this info. On a number of threads I've seen particulars of claim noted above the defence, should I include that or leave it out when I submit the defence? Not sure if it's intended to be helpful for the judge or s/he would take a dim view of it if I did? Just on point 3, I wasn't the driver of the car, should I say that or not? Particulars of claim (for reference only) 1.The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, XXX XXX, was identified in the Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the 16/01/2018 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. 3. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. 5.The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 6.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. Defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It’s denied that the defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by, and the terms of entry set by, the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. The claimant is not in a position to state who the driver was at the time. 4. Paragraph 5 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes Liverpool airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 6 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to evidence its cause of action and contractual costs and what loss it has suffered. The Claimant is further 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.
  2. Putting my defence together today... Might be a dumb question but if I forget to include something I intend use in my witness statement, would that prevent me from including it in the said witness statement if it gets to that stage?
  3. Don't know if it's important, but that information was what I received in response to my CPR 31:14 request to Elms Legal as advised in your post (#51) above. Is it an important distinction?
  4. Took a while for me to get a pdf small enough for the uploads limits but I've managed it now. Thanks Elms SAR return.pdf
  5. Just a quick question... I've received a reply from Elms Legal regarding my CPR 31:14 request. They sent me a contract between VCS and LJLA, quite a few images of the car, some pages of what looks like their internal tracker system with information about me and notes on the case, and all the NTK's they have sent out. Nothing regarding planning permission. Do you need me to scan and post these docs? Thanks
  6. Thanks for your reply. I've responded to the claim on the MCOL website - I have a quick question about the CPR 31:14 request before I send it off though if that's OK... When this thread originally started, it was mentioned any parking 'offences' at Liverpool Airport would be covered by byelaws, so do I need to request any additional info because of this? Thanks Ray
  7. Well, it's been almost 4 years since this thread first started about a PCN I received from Vehicle Control Services back in Jan 2018 for allegedly stopping (the driver didn't stop, they just turned round because the road is a dead end) at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. Originally I followed the advice on here and their previous legal representatives, BWL, eventually gave up the fight. Now it seems VCL have a new legal team, ELMS Legal Ltd, and they have decided to issue a County Court claim, despite me responding to their LBA in exactly the same way I responded to BWL. Here are the details of their claim and a copy of the claim form... Name of the Claimant - Vehicle Control Services Claimants Solicitors - Edmond Shoreman-Lawson of ELMS Legal Ltd Date of issue - 03 Nov 2021 Date for AOS - 22 Nov 2021 Date to submit Defence - 06 Dec 2021 What is the claim for – 1.The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendant's vehicle, XXX XXX, was identified in the Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the xx/xx/xxxx in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. 2.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. 3.The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 4.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. What is the value of the claim? Amount Claimed - £160.00 court fees- £35.00 legal rep fees- £50.00 Total Amount- £245.00 Many thanks for any help you can offer.
  8. Thanks. I have been reading lots of threads on here and had read all the info you gave me except I couldn't find what to do about the personal information. Thanks again
  9. Good Morning, I've now received form N180 to complete and return to the court - however, it says I must "serve copies on all other parties"... I'm obviously happy to comply with this, but it will mean Excel will then have my phone number, email address and signature. I'm hoping someone can advise if I have to give Excel my personal details? Thanks
  10. Thanks for the help, I'll post back if/when I hear anything else from them...
  11. Here's the NTK without obscuring the images. If you were trying to see if a ticket was attached to the windscreen you can't tell from the images on the NTK but you can from some of the other images they've posted online so I've attached them as well. You can see from the first image there is nothing, then 1 minute and 1 second later there's a ticket on the windscreen... ntk+pix.pdf
  12. Well I went ahead and submitted the defence as time was running short. As I said above I was trying to find a POFA violation seeing as this is the stick they are trying to beat me with, and I think I've found one but only AFTER submitting the defence - ooops! The driver informed me today that a windscreen ticket was placed on the car windscreen, but this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Anyway, the event happened 18/04/19 and the NTK was issued 24/04/19 - 6 days later! Schedule 4 says it should be issued "28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given" which makes it non-compliant - yay. However, as I didn't mention this in my defence as I only found out after it was submitted, will I still be able to use it as part of my defence if it goes to court? Thanks
  13. You're right, I have a tendency to over think things and was trying to find a POFA infraction to add to the defence given that it's POFA they are using to try to create liability. Here's where I'm at so far... 1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of motor vehicle XXXX XXX. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked in MediaCityUK Surface car park at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. I submit that at the time of the alleged contravention, Excel Parking Services Limited did not have planning permission from Salford City Council, under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007, for their signage at the MediaCityUK Surface car park which is a criminal offence and that the driver can't enter into a criminal contract therefore no contract to breach. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by, and the terms of entry set by, the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. 5. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
  14. Still trying to identify where Excel's NTK might be non-compliant and hopefully this might be it... In POFA Schedule 4 paragraph 4 subsection (5) it says: The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified). Excel increased the charge from £100 to £160 but on the NTK it says that this extra amount is for Debt Collection. Can they legitimately add an additional £60 to the invoice by saying it's for debt collection? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...