Morning,

VCS have, to my surprise, paid the court fee in this case, so the hearing is next Monday (13th June). I think I have pretty much everything ready, but just wondered if you have any tips that might be useful on the day? Also I have one or two points that I could do with clarifying if that's OK...

1. VCS submitted their 'new' bundle to the court, but it was exactly the same as their original. It doesn't address any of my arguments that the judge in the telephone hearing said should be the 4 points of contention in the case. Do you think this will help or hinder my case in any way?

2. I asked the judge in the telephone hearing if I could question the author of VCS' witness statement. Do I restate this right at the start of the case, even though the author isn't there?

Sure I will have a few more bits n pieces to ask as the week goes on and I think of new things.

Sorry if I'm being dumb, but would I draw attention to it in written form some way, or verbally with the judge on the day of the hearing?

How would I introduce that to the judge at this stage?

I've already submitted my witness statement (albeit the judge didn't get given a copy) assumed I would be prevented from offering new information after the court received the original WS?

Thanks again for all the help, not been ignoring it, but I'm away at the moment so not checking the laptop as much as usual.

Does anyone have an idea as to what might be in the bundle the judge asked VCS to produce? Is he giving them the opportunity to produce an additional WS? Just don't want to be caught unawares...

Also, given that they now know what my arguments are, and they're getting a second bite at the cherry so to speak, is there anything they might try that I should be aware of?

Cheers

No the next one is an in-person hearing...

Forgot to say, I asked the judge if I had the right to question the author of the Claimant's WS at the next hearing. He told Mr Pickup to make a note of that, and his reply was "they usually don't make the author available and were aware that it weakens their case" - I paraphrased the bit in bold because I can't remember his exact words.

Had the hearing yesterday but turns out it was just a telephone hearing to see if we could come to any agreement before a full hearing...

A Mr Pickup was representing VCS, it sounded like he was driving which the judge seemed to get a tad upset about. He said he was just parked near a motorway to excuse the noise, but he got cut off a couple of times, so not sure if he was telling the truth or not.

The hearing didn't start too well, as the judge hadn't been given my WS, but accepted that I must have sent it in, as they did have my contact details which were sent at the same time. Because of this he asked me what my case was based on:

1. No contract between VCS & Airport, also no contract between VCS and me

2. Airport byelaws

3. NTK non-compliant

4. Double recovery

At first he only heard the first part of point number 1 and thought I was on a 'sticky wicket' if I was saying the signage didn't form a contract. I thought he was going to rule against me right away, but after explaining about the other points and that this was a very brief overview of my case, we got to continue.

VCS said they hadn't received my WS either, but I have a receipt saying that it was delivered to them and the judge accepted that. 

On one occasion when Mr Pickup got reconnected to the call, the judge read him my side of the case and asked him if he agreed that these were the 4 points of contention in this case. Mr Pickup said that from what he had read he agreed they were!

Now, Mr Pickup could only have 'read' this if he had seen my WS, so me thinks he had probably seen it. I got the feeling that it was a good thing Mr Pickup agreed to this as the case will now be fought on my points - am I right in that thought, or is it irrelevant? 

The judge asked VCS to provide a 'bundle' 10 days before the hearing, I'm pretty sure he didn't ask me for anything. What would be in this bundle? He also set aside 90 minutes for the case, is the amount of time important at all - it sounded quite a long time for something pretty straightforward?

Just so I can be prepared, what should I expect VCS to do now?

Witness Statement sent, will update here as soon as I have anything. Court date 2 weeks today - 21/03/22

Thanks

This is a telephone case so no travel costs to claim, there is a small amount of postage but not much. I'm sure I've read somewhere I can claim for a set number of hours (at a set hourly rate) for the preparation work I've done - am I mistaken in that?

It surprises me you say they would get their £50 legal costs, I thought it had been decided that the amount on the NTK included ALL costs? Or does  that amount exclude legal costs?

Can you point me anywhere I can verify that VCS never let the WS author into court or is it just from your experience here? I'd like to verify it for myself so that I'm not claiming something to the judge that I can't justify.

Thanks for all that...

The WS was based on the one recommended further up in this thread (by Alaska 101 I believe) so I can't take full credit . I'm not concerned about getting it to the Court on time, it is not too far from where I live, so I could hand deliver it if needed. Plus the court said I can email it to them if necessary.

It was more about getting it to VCS on time so as not to give them any additional leverage - by the sounds of it though, making sure they get it by the Monday 4pm cut-off time isn't crucial.

 In some ways it will be a shame if the WS scares them off, I know it's probably never a good idea to go to court if it can be avoided, but was secretly hoping they would press on.

If it does get in front of the judge, can I ask for any costs for the time it's taken to deal with this? Sure somewhere I've seen there's a set amount you can value your time at? If there is, do I have to ask at this stage or later?

Thanks again 

Do I have the right to question the person who wrote the Claimant's witness statement or is it OK for them to send a replacement?

Perfect thanks...

The date for me to submit the WS is 7th March. Do I have to submit it to VCS by the same date or do I have some flexibility with them? It will be finally finished tonight, but just thinking about the time it takes in the post - don't want to fall at the last hurdle.

Never mind, think I've found it. This was the final piece I needed before it's finally finished

On 01/03/2022 at 23:58, lookinforinfo said:

Jopson ve homeguard is the definitive case for proving stopping is not parking.

Sorry to be a pain but does anyone know which part of this judgement demonstrates that stopping is not parking? I've read through it but can't find the relevant section. 

So I don't need to provide a printed copy of any legislation, just a quote of the relevant part will do? That's great if I've understood you right as my WS is starting to get pretty bulky...

Thanks, I've decided to remove any mention of it in the WS as advised...

I have a question regarding any legislation I reference in the WS. Do I need to provide the entire PoFA for example or just the part/s I reference? It seems like it would be overkill to provide it all, as the WS could end up running to hundreds of pages. Probably asked and answered, but thought it best to check.

Cheers

OK, I've deleted points 4.4 and 8.5 that mentioned obtaining the details illegally. If there are any other suggestions for improvement and/or amendments, I'd be happy to hear them...

If the consensus is this section should be deleted then I will delete it, but I still maintain they illegally obtained my details. Even if they didn't know I wasn't the driver, they still knew they didn't have a valid contract so the result is the same. Maybe I should amend it to...

4.4 - As I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I maintain my contact details were obtained illegally from the DVLA as (1) The Claimant knew they didn't have a valid contract at the time of the request, and (2) the Claimant relied on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to obtain them which does not apply in this case.

As I said though, I can delete it if it's going to cause an issue. 

Thanks for the help so far

Finally got the first draft of the WS finished - I underestimated how much work this would be, so I know there will be things I've missed and stuff still to add, but this is all I have for the moment.

I'm sure it will need much attention and that I will have used many inappropriate phrases, so I'd appreciate any feedback/corrections you can offer...

Claim Number: XXXXXXXXX

In the County Court XXXXXXX

At XXXXXXX

Number:

BETWEEN: Vehicle Control Services Ltd (claimant)

AND

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

Witness Statement of XXXXXXX

Introduction:

1 - I am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2 - In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

3 - I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case which is XXXXXXX.

4 - I will say that the Claimant’s case is not valid based on the following:

4.1 - The Claimant (VCS) is aware there was no legal contract between themselves and the Defendant which suggests their Witness Statement is tantamount to perjury.

4.2 - The roads in Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) are covered by local byelaws which supersede any contract between the Claimant and the airport.   

4.3 - The Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent to the Defendant is non-compliant.

4.4 - As I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I maintain my contact details were obtained illegally from the DVLA as the Claimant relied on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to obtain them which does not apply in this case.

4.5 - The Claimant has failed to justify their costs in this matter and is attempting double recovery.

5 - Sequence of events:

5.1 - As the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged infringement (16/01/2018), he is unable to provide a sequence of events for that date.

5.2 - The Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) via post, dated 19/01/2018. The PCN states: Contravention Reason: “46) STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITED” Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Liverpool, L24 1YD.

5.3 - Following several months of intimidating letters from the Claimant, and their original legal team (BW Legal), including mention of additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs and potential effects on my employment, contact from the claimant ceased after the Defendant sent them a letter, dated 30/05/2018, outlining my reasons for declining to pay.

5.4 - Almost 4 years after the date of the alleged incident, I began to receive correspondence from the claimant’s latest legal representatives (ELMS Legal Ltd) and on 04/11/2021, the Defendant received the county court claim form that we are dealing with today.

5.5 - The Defendant subsequently received a letter from the Claimant, dated 14/12/2021, stating that ELMS Legal Ltd were no longer acting on their behalf and they would be representing themselves.

6 - The Contract:

In the Claimants witness statement, at point 13 they state “The Defendant became liable for the parking charge as the vehicle to which they are responsible for was found in breach of the Contract. The evidence adduced to this statement identifies that the vehicle was stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”

It is contended that no Legal contract existed between the Claimant and the Defendant at the time of this incidence and that the Claimant knows this is the case despite what they have said in their witness statement.

6.1 - In the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber, Court of Appeal (Appeal number: FTC 51/2011) in Vehicle Control Service (the Claimant) v’s HMRC, Judges’ Berner and Aleksander said “39. We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist. Any contract requires there to be an offer and acceptance.” The court also stated “40. On the facts of this case we do not consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a contract between it and the motorist. VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS. That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession. It merely conferred a right of entry to perform VCS’s obligations under the contract.” The Lord Justices continued “41. The warning signs erected in the car park do not assist VCS in these circumstances. The reference in those signs to the fact that the motorist is entering into a contractual agreement cannot create a contract where there is no relevant offer from VCS that can be accepted.”

6.2 - It is clear from the above that the Appeal Court is saying that any contract is between the landowner and the Claimant, and not between the Claimant and the Defendant. It is the landowner that is allowing the motorist on to their land, not the Claimant. So, there is no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

6.3 - The Defendant maintains the Claimant is fully aware of the implications of the above judgement and suggests, if that is the case, the Statement of Truth in their Witness Statement is tantamount to perjury.

6.4 - According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 for a contract to be valid it requires a director from each company to sign and two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between the Claimant and the Defendant.

6.5 - The contract was struck on 25^th July 2013 for a fixed period of 24 months from 08/07/2013 meaning the contract expired almost 7 years ago. Therefore, there can be no contract established between the Claimant and the Defendant as there was no valid contract between the Claimant and the Airport at the time of the alleged contravention.

6.6 - There is no mention in the contract of ‘No Stopping’ being a contravention that a PCN can be issued for. Therefore, even if the court accepts that there was a valid contract in existence, the Claimant was not granted power by the landowner to issue a PCN for this contravention. Furthermore, ‘No Stopping’ is prohibitive and therefore cannot form the basis of a contract.

6.7 - Point 3.2 of contract with LJLA stipulates that the Claimant “shall provide line markings and re-line markings for the various sites”. Therefore, I put the Claimant to strict proof that the road lines where the Defendant’s vehicle was photographed were lines laid down by the City Council rather than lines laid down by the Claimant that have no legal significance.

7 - Airport Byelaws:

https://www.liverpoolairport.com/media/3936/liverpool-john-lennon-airport-byelaws-september-2021.pdf

According to the Claimants Witness Statement, “the defendant’s vehicle was identified stopped on the access road in Liverpool John Lennon Airport”.

7.1 - The Claimant states that the vehicle was stopped on the "access road" to the airport. Given that there are four access roads into the airport, depending on where a motorist is arriving from, ‘access road’ is extremely vague. So vague as to be without merit and the case be thrown out. You would have thought the Claimant would know, and therefore specify, the name of said access road.

7.2 - In any event, an access road would surely be of such significance that it would be under statutory control and subject to Road Traffic Act 1988 and/or airport byelaws rather than a private parking company.

7.3 - The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the road in question is not under statutory control.

8 - Notice to Keeper/PoFA

In Point 18 of their Witness Statement the Claimant stated their reliance upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to “hold the Defendant liable for the Parking Charge under the said enactment”.

8.1 - Schedule 4 of PoFA allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The PoFA definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. The Claimant hasn’t stated which access road the alleged contravention took place on, but all four access roads at LJLA are subject to statutory control in respect of being covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) and it being a road “to which the public has access”.

8.2 - Paragraph 8 (2) states that for an NTK to be relied upon, the notice must - (a) “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”. As the Claimant hasn’t stated which access road the alleged contravention took place on, the NTK has failed to satisfy the requirements of PoFA in this respect.

8.3 - The access roads are also subject to the Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws 17/06/1982. Therefore, schedule 4 of PoFA does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for any charges.

8.4 - Throughout their Witness Statement the Claimant uses the term ‘Parking’, on numerous occasions when referring to their actions at LJLA.  The original NTK gives the contravention as ‘Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited’. I submit that the Claimant is deliberately conflating parking and stopping in order to confuse the court. No Stopping is different from Parking as… NEED REFERENCE FOR THIS

8.5 - Despite knowing their case cannot rely on PoFA to recover any costs, the Defendant maintains that the Claimant has deliberately misused the PoFA legislation to obtain his details from the DVLA.

9. - Double Recovery

9.1 - The Claimant's Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in a letter I received on XXXXX the Claimant states that they are not represented by solicitors but are representing themselves"

9.2 - As well as £50 legal costs, The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

9.3 - PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4 (5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.

9.4 - Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

9.5 - Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e.: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking 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 an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) cover the costs of the letters.

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

9.6 - In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''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...''

9.7 - The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

9.8 - It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)

9.9 - The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Apologies it's taken a while to respond, just been a really busy time for me lately. Hopefully I can get something for you to have a look at later this week...

Thanks @LookingForInfo, that's a ton of helpful stuff. It might take me a while to fully digest and understand it all, purely because this is all pretty new to me.

Should I mention what you said with regards to potential perjury and/or GDPR breach in the WS or is that a step too far?

Thanks again...

Thanks everyone, this is all incredibly helpful information

Thanks for sorting that - proper annoyed I missed that claim number 

I've seen that WS recommended on other threads so I've been looking at it already. It's going to take me a few days to get this finished, but I'll paste it up here before I do anything with it.

OK, here's  the WS I received from VSC

claimants WSa.pdf

What do I do if I can't get the file small enough?

The original scanned docs came in at 115mb; I've used the PDF Reducer software and run it through a second compression site but it's still 6.5mb and the quality is starting to suffer now. Is it OK to split the file and upload 2 documents, or is there another way?

Many thanks...

I've just received a witness statement from VCS. When I've had time to read it fully, I'll scan and upload it - hopefully get it done tomorrow some time...

Thanks dx, I have a question triggered by your last reply...

Nowhere on the letter I received does it mention anything about the court fee or when VCS would need to pay it.

The letter says "Before the claim is listed for hearing, the judge has ordered that a preliminary hearing should take place :- Dispute Resolution Hearing - you will receive a BTMeetme call between... (then the time &date)"

Is a preliminary hearing normal, have I received the correct letter from the court? 

Just received a hearing date for this, it's 21/03/22 which means my witness statement needs to be in before 7th March - is that right? 

When do VCS have to pay the court fee by?