VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no stopping - Southend Airport

[brassnecked]

Do as EB says, and follow this sticky and answer the questions that will give the details needed, I had to delete the pngimages as anyone can see them, if a pdf is posted up  only Registered and Logged in Caggers can view them.

 

 

[Deadlock]

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

 

 

[dx100uk]

can you please get the link Q&A done ASAP.

 

as for what to do now.

follow this:

 

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
.
 register as an individual
 note the long gateway number given
 then log in
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked.
 click thru to the end
 confirm and exit MCOL.

 get that CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]

 

no need to sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

[ericsbrother]

you are not contesting the jurisdiction- that means to dont agree it should be heard in an English Court if you tick YES to that.

[dx100uk]

do the link questions please.

[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." ?

[FTMDave]

You have a month yet to get your defence in.

 

A good draft of one is post 58 at -

- but as your case is different drop point (3) and add another point about VCS having failed to identify the driver.

 

Please post up your draft defence here later so we can tweak it before it goes in.

[dx100uk]

not sure how you worked your dates out ...

but your defence is due 17th march...

 

get CPR done too

 

dx

 

[ericsbrother]

Do they really say LICENCE PLATE? we dont have those in the UK unlike the US or Germany

somehting to bear in mind when you rip their claim and WS to bits later on

[lookinforinfo]

It really is a ridiculous rule- no stopping. What happens if a pedestrian or animal is in front of you?  You can't run them over . You have a puncture, run out of petrol or your engine conks out etc etc. are all thigs that are not planned yet bound to get the crooks reaching for the registration number to fire off a PCN. Highway robbery. 

[brassnecked]

VCS tend to get a hammering on the Airport No Stopping claims they bring, but Simple Simon is not for learning, I think one fleecing attempt was for a car that stopped at a pedestrian crossing.

[Deadlock]

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

[dx100uk]

not due yet

and you don't inc that bottom sentence no..

[Deadlock]

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?

 

 

[dx100uk]

no the in summary sentence ..

 

but anyway...

go read that thread you got that from again now

there is an updated version later on and posts today asking exactly the same q's with advice.

 

you do not file it yet ...no..

 

[ericsbrother]

do you havent sent them a CPR request for ducuments but are stating that you have and havent received a response.

 

Which is true, you sent it and they didnt respond in the allowed time or you are writing this up to send later on the assumption they dont respond?

 

you have neen given succint advice from several posters but appear to be mangling that advice into something that isnt that coherent

 

for example your summary doesnt precis the points made above it but raises entirely different points. By all menas use these but bullet point them.

 

as for the statement of truth, you have been told by 2 people to drop it as that isnt required wording adn just sign off the online form haveing read what it says rather than inventing your own version

[Deadlock]

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.

 

[ericsbrother]

OK point 2 the claim is an abuse of process .....

point 4 ... failed to identify the driver and  there is no keeper liability in this matter so no cause for action against the defendant

 

that way you avoid confusion on what part you are playing in this opera. You are the defendant, you are not the driver, the keeper, the owner  or the man that holds the horses.

[Deadlock]

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

[Deadlock]

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

[dx100uk]

nope go read that thread you got that defence from again.

there is an updated version of the defence further down

use that ONLY.

 

you can file now if you are going to be away.

 

dx

 

[Deadlock]

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

[Deadlock]

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

 

 

[dx100uk]

never

 

costs is not a counter claim

[ericsbrother]

if you had followed the other threads you would ahve found a quite decent outline defence to copy.

I post it here below

Report post

 #31

Posted February 26

So I guess the below is okay?

 

1. No keeper liability as this is not "relevant land" under the POFA 2012 and the defendant puts it to strict proof that VCA show as to who the driver was at the time.

 

2. No contract was ever offered by VCS, the land is subject to its own byelaws and in any case the signage is prohibitive so there can be no monies due as a result of either a contractual charge or as a result of a breach of contract.

 

3. The claimant has not shown locus standi in this matter.

 

4. It is denied that there is the ability to enter into a contract with the Claimant as the signs which are in place refer to no stopping which it is denied creates a contract for the Defendant to enter into and rather this is a prohibitive notice.

 

5. A CPR 31.14 request was sent to the Claimant on the 24th February 2020 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of proof of assignment from the landlord to create contracts and make claims in their own name. No response to this has been received. 

 

modify and use this, i am not hallpy about the abuse of process point as it is a moot point