Yes, I moved house roughly 2 months ago, the letter was only received at the previous house on 06/10

Hello All! Long time no speak, latest development is: I have received a Notice of Allocation to small claims track, still awaiting a confirmed hearing date. I literally only got the letter about a week ago (as it was at my old address). After reading it I saw point 14 that states I can apply to have the order stayed but it needs to arrive within 7 days of service of the order itself (dated 9th of july!) I assume, that would have been the recomended course of action would i have received it earlier? Thanks

Morning all, Pardon my absence; I received a Notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track on the 12th of March (when I was away). I have looked for any similar threads to guide me with tackling this proposal, but didn't get anywhere, does one exist? Thanks

Good Morning, I am just submitting my defence when I ran into a little grey area on my part; Will I be making a counterclaim? The only reason I ask is my initial response included 'Should you decide to continue then I shall be asking for a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and then seek damages for breach of the DPA' At the time I assumed it was a kind of scare tactic, is that the case? Thanks

I went through that damn thread about 5 times. And somehow missed the updated version 1. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created. 2. The claimant has abused the process and failed to mitigate their actions. 3. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant and no response to this has been received. Thus the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 4. Additionally the VCS has failed to identify the driver and there is no keeper liability in this matter, so no cause for action against the defendant Thanks

Hello All, I am going on holiday next week so therefore won't be able to submit my defence on the day it is needed. Going to send the below tomorrow morning: 1. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created. 2. This is a clear abuse of process. 3. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant and no response to this has been received. Thus the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 4. Additionally the VCS has failed to identify the driver and there is no keeper liability in this matter, so no cause for action against the defendant Thanks all

Thanks for clarifying the points EB, really appreciate it; 1. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created. 2. This is an abuse of process. The sole reason for the stopping was to ask for the direction (the drop-off point in this case) from their onsite traffic warden. I am going to drop the strike out sentence, as it does not apply to the previous statement, should I add anything in regards to the abuse of process? 3. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant and no response to this has been received. Thus the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 4. Additionally the VCS has failed to identify the driver and there is no keeper liability in this matter, so no cause for action against the defendant

Answering points above: The CPR is now sent (as of Friday) and I wrote point 3 in preparation for no response to the CPR as you have stated. The summary was an oversight on my part as I focused on the statement "it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without basis, and the Claimant has no right to pursue said claim" which I felt applied to my situation, as you can see below, this has been removed completely. Also the 'Statement of truth was just added for my own clarification, and not intended to be included in the Defence, as stated previously, sorry for the confusion; The Defence edited is below: 1. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created. 2. The claimant has abused the process and failed to mitigate their actions. The sole reason for the stopping was to ask for the direction (the drop-off point in this case) from their onsite traffic warden. 3. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant and no response to this has been received. Thus the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 4. Additionally the VCS has failed to identify the driver and thus has no grounds to assume that the owner of the vehicle is at fault.

The bottom 'Also I wanted to confirm' wasn't to be included in the defence statement. Should I hold fire on sending this off? or just get this submitted sooner rather than later?

Just to quickly answer a few points above: dx: I worked out the date of my Defence to be submitted by the 17th of March also, but somehow explained it completely wrong! Also CPR is filled out, will be sending off this evening. EB: They did not use the term Licence plate, I did this to conceal my Licence plate number. The Defence edited is below: 1. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created. 2. The claimant has abused the process and failed to mitigate their actions. The sole reason for the stopping was to ask for the direction (the drop-off point in this case) from their onsite traffic warden. 3. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant and no response to this has been received. Thus the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim. 4. Additionally the VCS has failed to identify the driver and thus has no grounds to assume that the owner of the vehicle is at fault. (<<Does this sound ok?) In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without basis, and the Claimant has no right to pursue said claim. The charge is unconscionable and relies upon a misleading business practice as described above and the attempt to add a further sum in 'damages' that a private parking firm is not entitled to collect, is a clear abuse of process. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. And also I too wanted to confirm: Statement of Truth: I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. Thanks Deadlock

Does the Q&A need to be done for each 'Q' in the link also? Or just the information below; Name of the Claimant :Vehicle Control Services Claimants Solicitors: Not States Date of issue – 19th Feb 2020 Date for AOS - Completed on Monday 24th of Feb (+19 = 18th March) Date to submit Defence - (+14 days from the 14th of March =) 17th of March -Not yet submitted. [NOTE : WHEN CALCULATING YOUR TIMELINE - PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE DATE ON THE CLAIMFORM IS ONE IN ANY COUNT [an example: Issue date 01.03.2020: + 19 days = 19.03.2020 :+ 14 days to submit defence = 02.04.2014: a total of 33 days] What is the claim for – Particulars of claim state: 1.The Claim is for the breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2.The Defendant's vehicle, reg xxxx', was identified in the Southend Airport on the 15/10/2019 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. 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. 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 the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. Obviously taking the above claim into consideration, and the link provided, would be my defence be based on section 6. "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." ?

Apologies about the above, Still a tad wet behind the ears about these processes, Despite perusing these forums constantly. I have now completed the AOS, upon filling out the intentions section, I am asked as to whether I am contesting Jurisdiction, now although it has been stated that a magical agreement was made when I entered the no-stopping zone, I just want to make sure I am filling this out correctly. So it is safe to say I should tick that box and that I AM contesting jurisdiction? Thanks

Hello All, Developments in this situation are that; this has reached my door yesterday. I have scanned all of the pages and they can be reviewed in the attached. What are the appropriate steps from this point? Thanks again for your assistance Deadlock

I used the reply form and wrote the previously mentioned; This is exactly what I wrote on the reply form, obviously also my Signature and date on the back also. Do I need to fill in any of the forms provided by them, or do I just type up a letter and send to them? I was asking . Too late now... Shouldn't matter though should it?

I have posted the reply form today! Thanks all!