Elms Legal no longer acting on behalf of VSC which is pretty standard stuff from what I've read on similar threads. They said if I pay just £185, they will make this whole thing will go away - such kindness is rarely seen nowadays 

I think I'm right in saying that once the case has been allocated to a court, it's at that stage they have to decide whether they want to pay the court fee - is that right? How long do they get to pay after a case has been allocated? 

Thank you...

I've received the N180 from the court - it needs to be filed by 23/12 so just wanted to check a couple of points. Sorry if you've answered these question a million times, but I haven't come across them...

1. For contact details it asks for phone number and email address, now obviously I don't want VCS to have this info, so what's the recommendation?

2. Taking into account the Christmas post, do you advise signed for postage or is proof of posting good enough? 

Thanks

Perfect, thanks - defence filed...

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.

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? 

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Thanks for the help, I'll post back if/when I hear anything else from them...

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

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

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.

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

I know I keep making errors with this but can I ask one question - Does the original NTK need to mention the phrase POFA?

If the answer is NO, then I realise this might seem like a pointless question, but I've read and reread schedule 4 of POFA and I can't see that any of the mandatory information is missing from the NTK. If it does need to mention POFA however (the NTK doesn't mention it btw), it gives me something to cling to...

Sorry about that, wasn't aware of the situation. I asked further up the thread if it is OK to paste my intended defence and was told "What does everyone else do?" which I took to mean I should.

Maybe I misunderstood...

Been away since my last post so now I'm back it's time to get this sorted...

I've been given a template defence courtesy of Andyorch and have a couple of questions about it if that's OK? This is what I have...

So my questions are...

1. Can they ONLY establish Keeper Liability IF they mention POFA on the original Notice to Keeper? If so, what do I put in section 3 of the defence? If not, what do I put in section 3 of the defence?

2. In section 5 of the defence (signage), any suggestions as to wording for why a charge is not incorporated into the contract? I know Ericsbrother said not to get hung up on the signage issue at this stage, but it seems to me this should be included. I can delete that bit if that's the consensus here.

As always, apologies if some of these points are a bit newbish, this is not stuff I'm familiar with but eager to take them on if that's what they decide.

Cheers 

OK that's fine...

Is it OK to post the defence on here once I've prepared it (hopefully next week) for you all to look through or is that not recommended?

Ray

Thanks for all the help and information so far...

I have filed my AoS via the moneyclaim website, and have drafted my CPR 31.14 request letter using the template dx100uk pointed me to - will post it this afternoon. I assume it will need signing for?

When it comes to filing my defence, is it worth filing a counter-claim at the same time or is that too much hassle? I would like to counter in order to encourage them to drop their claim beforehand rather than them just not turning up on the day and therefore wasting everybody's time. If it's not advised though, I will listen to them that know best

Ray

Name of the Claimant ? - Excel Parking Services Ltd

claimants Solicitors:  - No mention of any lawyers name/s. The court document is signed by Simon Renshaw-Smith (Claimant) so maybe he is representing himself nowadays

Date of issue - 02.09.19

What is the claim for -

1.The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

2.The Defendant's vehicle, XXXX XXX, was identified in the MediaCityUK Surface Car Park on 18/04/2019 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parked after the expiry of the time purchased.

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.

The sign was an offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.

5.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 recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

What is the value of the claim? - £185.00

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim? - Issued by the PPC

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? - N/A

ADDITIONAL INFO...

1. There is no mention of POFA on the original PCN but I'm not sure if it needs to mention POFA in order to use it to establish keeper liability. They did add £60 to the original total which I believe is not allowed under POFA.

2. I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I don't drive due to a medical condition.

3. I've scoured the Salford Council planning portal and can find no mention of any planning permission for signage at the site.

4. In an earlier post in this thread, EricsBrother outlined why the signage is wrong although I can't claim to fully understand what the issues are.

Ray

COURT FORMS RECEIVED FROM SIMPLE SIMON

Quick Recap...

I received a Notice to Keeper from Excel Parking for overstaying in a car park in Media City, Manchester in April this year. I ignored all their letters until they sent me a Letter Before Claim in July. At that stage I sent them the snotty reply but they have now issued court papers for said event.

I wasn't driving the car as I don't drive due to a brain condition that affects my eyesight but they are obviously assuming, or hoping to convince the court, that I was the driver.

Back to Today - a couple of questions if that's OK...

1. What do I need to do to fight this - I assume there is quite a strict time limit? I am more than happy to take them on in court and read on another thread about submitting a counter claim for breach of GDPR. I told them I would do this in my snotty letter so it would be rude not to - is this something you would recommend or should I let that aspect drop?

2. As mentioned above I have a brain condition and while it doesn't affect my thinking in any way, it can affect my memory and thought process sometimes - would the court make allowances for this?

BTW...

There is no mention of POFA on their original invoice and I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that for keeper liability to apply, any NTK had to be POFA compliant.  

Many thanks