Jump to content

wakeyshakey

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About wakeyshakey

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks DX Is there a template I should follow for something like this and is theere anything else that can be done in regards to getting them to remove it altogether ? thanks
  2. ok.. so the 6 yr rile doesn't apply. Any suggestions on how best to proceed with this? As they haven't defaulted the account, statute of limitations wouldnt even apply... thanks
  3. Hi DX According to the statement they sent, it should have been defaulted in March 2007 as thats when the statement went to 0 and a payment arrangement of £1 was in place for some years after and stopped in feb 2015. As token payments were being made, I take it the 6 year rule would not apply here? thanks
  4. Hi Laredoute responded to the SAR with copies of statement showing an outstanding balance and last time payment (token payment £1/month) was made to the account but no credit agreement was produced. Is there any steps that can be taken to get La Redoute removed from one's credit file? Thanks
  5. Thanks DX I'll change point 1 of my statement. (I found a grammatical error anyway)... and read through the thread you posted Thanks again... any and all help is much appreciated before posting in the morning
  6. I made a few changes... If anyone can have a look before morning and let me know if its ok or please let me know of anything that might bolster my statement, it will be much appreciate as it needs to be posted tomorrow morning Many thanks --------------------- Claim Number: Between: Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant) v (Defendant) I, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, am the defendant in this case. 1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2) I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, xxxxxxxxxxxx. 3) The claimant advised in the Particulars of Claim that “The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land”. The claimant produced a contract which showed a valid date of 31st December 2013 for a period of 1 year. The PCN was issued on xx July 2017 which renders this document out of date. There cannot be a breach of contract if there is no valid contract in place. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the required evidence. 3) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that I was the driver. 3.1 I was not driving the vehicle on the date when the PCN was affixed to the car and VCS is put to strict proof to show who the driver was as there is no keeper liability in this matter. 3.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA[EXHIBIT A], a private parking operator must demonstrate that: 3.2.1. There was a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' formed with the driver, and 3.2.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charges itself, on prominent signs in large lettering displayed clearly at the place where the car was parked, and at the entrance, and 3.2.3. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 3.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. 4) I deny that any “parking charges, damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety. 5) There is another entrance into the shared business park on Denby Dale road, where Xercise4less is situated. The signs throughout the complex are indistinguishable unless scrutinised up close. The colour scheme of the signs are exactly the same across the whole site and someone visiting Xercise4less or Yesss Electrical wouldn’t know where the demarcation points were in the Business Park, thus falling foul to VCS’ unscrupulous tactics. 6) The Claimant has not shown tangible proof via an up to date contract that expressly permits them to bring a claim against me. Merely putting up parking signs and stating that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme since 13, December 2018, as they have stated in their Witness statement is just not enough. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 7) I have the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the right to bring any claim in the absence of a valid and up to date contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely putting up parking signs and issuing letters on behalf of the true landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 8) The driver did not enter into any agreement. No consideration flowed between the two parties and no contract was established. 9) I deny that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions been properly displayed. 10) The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. 11) I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £60 losses costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. 12) The operation at this location is predatory, with hidden/small signage designed not to be seen, in order to penalise unsuspecting drivers rather than offer a clear contract to park at a reasonable price. The charge is excessive and unfair in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis fully distinguished. 13) I deny that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper. 14) I deny the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. I request that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Signed................... ........ Date.....................
  7. Hi Please see changes below. Can anyone please advise if this will be ok and if not, any changes I need to make as Need to have it in post tomorrow for next day delivery. Should I removed points 3.1 to 3.3 and also point 7? thanks ____ Claim Number: ___ Between: Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant) v ___(defendant's name) (Defendant) I, ************** am the defendant in this case. 1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2) I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, (make, model). 3) The claimant advised in the Particulars of Claim that “The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land”. The claimant produced a contract which showed a valid date of 31st December 2013 for a period of 1 year. The PCN was issued on xx July 2017 which renders this document out of date. There cannot be a breach of contract if there is no valid contract in place. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the required evidence. 3) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. 3.1 I was not driving the vehicle on the on the date when the PCN was affixed to the car and VCS is put to strict proof to show who the driver was as there is no keeper liability in this matter. 3.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, a private parking operator must demonstrate that: 3.2.1. There was a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' formed with the driver, and 3.2.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charges itself, on prominent signs in large lettering displayed clearly at the place where the car was parked, and at the entrance, and 3.2.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 3.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment. could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. 4) I deny that any “parking charges, damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety. 5) The Claimant has not shown tangible proof via an up to date contract that expressly permits them to bring a claim against me. Merely putting up parking signs and stating that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme since 13, December 2018, as they have stated in their Witness statement is just not enough. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 6) I deny that the Claimant does not have the right to bring any claim in the absence of a valid and up to date contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely putting up parking signs and issuing letters on behalf of the true landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 7) I rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. 8) The driver did not enter into any agreement. No consideration flowed between the two parties and no contract was established. 9) I deny that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions been properly displayed. 10) The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is roboclaims and as such is against the public interest. 11) I also dispute that the Claimant has incurred £60 losses costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt, the costs of which are in any case not recoverable. 12) The operation at this location is predatory, with hidden/small signage designed not to be seen, in order to penalise unsuspecting drivers rather than offer a clear contract to park at a reasonable price. The charge is excessive and unfair in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis fully distinguished. 13) I deny that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper. 14) I deny the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. I request that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Signed................... ........ Date.....................
  8. I noticed as well that they put 13th December in the Witness statement instead of 31st December as the contract states
  9. ok point made. The also mentioned that another contract is in place since December of 2013 which coincidentally was not included in their WS
  10. Does the Rolling contract not mean that they can continue using the current one? Would they still require additional paperwork to confirm the contract is still in place?
  11. Hi The below is stated in the contract. Does this mean the contract is still valid at this point and time as I have put in my WS that it is not? contract signed on 31st Dec 2013 Clause 6.4 states: That this agreement shall be extended immediately following the expiration of the term and will continue to roll for a further fixed period equal to the length of the term. ("the extended term") unless the client gives notice of termination in writing in accordance with clause 6.3
  12. Thanks Ericsbrother. Do I need to reference previous court cases or can I omit that? I'll repost again shortly Thanks
  13. Hi Ericsbrother/all... This is not my area of expertise and I'm really struggling and have 24hrs remaining before this needs to be posted out to make the deadline. I have made another attempt at the Witness statement. please have a look and I would really appreciate it if you can tell me specifically what I need to add/remove to wrap this up and put in the post Thanks in advance -------------------------- In the County Court Business Centre Claim Number: ___ Between: Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant) v ___(defendant's name) (Defendant) I, ************** am the defendant in this case. 1. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2) I am the registered keeper of this vehicle, (make, model). 3) The claimant advised in the Particulars of Claim that “The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms and Conditions of entering private land”. The claimant produced an old contract which showed a valid date of 31st December 2013 for a period of 1 year. The PCN was issued on xx July 2017 which renders this document out of date. There can not be a breach of contract if there is no valid contract in place. 3) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. 3.1I aver that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA'). 3.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, a private parking operator must demonstrate that: 3.2.1. There was a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' formed with the driver, and 3.2.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charge itself, on prominent signs in large lettering displayed clearly at the place where the car was parked, and at the entrance, and 3.2.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 3.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver . Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision . In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. 4) It is denied that any "parking charges, damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety. 5) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a valid and up to date contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely putting up parking signs and issuing letters on behalf of the true landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 6) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. 7) I aver that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant. 8) The operation at this location is predatory, with hidden/small signage designed not to be seen, in order to penalise unsuspecting drivers rather than offer a clear contract to park at a price. The charge is unconscionable and unfair in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis fully distinguished. 9) I deny that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper. 10) I deny the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Signed........................... Date.....................
  14. Here's my second go at this... Done some reading... so much to read.. I'm really tempted to purse VCS for compensation as this is so time consuming. My 2nd go at a WS. Please help me bloster it up so I can put it in the post in the next couple of days Regards WS ____________________________________ In the County Court Business Centre Claim Number: ___ Between: Vehicle Control Service Limited (Claimant) v ___(defendant's name) (Defendant) DEFENCE Preliminary 1) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimant’s contractual authority to operate at the time in which the charge notice was issued on 13th July 2017. Instead, a contract valid for a period of 12 months from 31st December 2013 was provided which is irrelevant and no longer valid. 2) The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point: 3) A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant on 23/05/18 and received no correspondence back from the Claimant. On the basis of the above, I request the court strike out the claim for want of a cause of action. Background 4) It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle which is the subject of these proceedings. 5) It is admitted that on the material date, the Defendant's vehicle was parked at the location stated. 6) The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. 6.1. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the 'POFA'). 6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, a private parking operator must demonstrate that: 6.2.1. there was a 'relevant obligation' and/or 'relevant contract' formed with the driver, and 6.2.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the terms and the parking charge itself, on prominent signs in large lettering displayed clearly at the place where the car was parked, and at the entrance, and 6.2.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper. It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements. 6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter. 7) It is denied that any "parking charges, damages or indemnity costs" (whatever they might be) as stated on the Particulars of Claim are owed. The alleged debt is denied in its entirety. 8) It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a valid and up to date contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely putting up parking signs and issuing letters on behalf of the true landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof. 9) The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout. 10) The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was inadequate and no consideration flowed between the driver and the Claimant. 11) This operation at this location is predatory, with hidden/small signage designed not to be seen, in order to penalise unsuspecting drivers rather than offer a clear contract to park at a price. The charge is unconscionable and unfair in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis fully distinguished. 12) It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought and it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant, which bear no relation to the maximum sum potentially able to be recovered from a registered keeper, as set out in the POFA, namely the sum stated in the Notice to Keeper. 13) The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success. I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection. Signed........................... Date.....................
×
×
  • Create New...