VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster

[dx100uk]

forget the byelaws for now

you don't need to even mention those in your defence

 

just use the std 3-5 line generic non specific bland defence you'll find in most no stopping claimform threads already here.

you don't give away any tips upon the contents of your later witness statement IF the claim ever gets that far

 

[notpayingapenny]

On 03/02/2021 at 02:02, lookinforinfo said:

The letter you received was from Excel parking yet VCS are also involved. That cannot only one company can have the contract. VCS do not rely on PoFA so they cannot pursue the keeper-only the driver is liable when PoFA does not apply. In any event,

 

their PCN is wrong as the Law does not state that if you do not reveal the name of the driver then they can pursue as the keeper on presumption that you are the driver. That is not what the act says and in any event they are not using PoFA!

 

As dx100uk rightly states the airport is covered by ByeLaws which outrank the shady crooks  signs. And where the roads aren't  covered by Byelaws, they are covered by the Road Traffic Act. So the airport land is not "Relevant Land" and so not covered by PoFA either. So no way do you owe them a penny.

 

I am struggling to phrase my defence properly about this aspect. I believe that I should not even use my point number 6 as that makes me seem to accept their alleged contract? Here is how far I have come so far... any pointers to any incorrect phrases will be much appreciated.
 

I have deleted the text so I can tery to search for the defence template referred to .. I had not seen the response before.

 

 

1 hour ago, dx100uk said:

just use the std 3-5 line generic non specific bland defence you'll find in most no stopping claimform threads already here.

Do I need to have a separate registration of the CAG library in order to have access to the templates and threads? 

Edited May 23, 2021 by notpayingapenny

[honeybee13]

No. Are you having problems?

 

HB

[notpayingapenny]

I thought I was before as it said "

• CAG Library - Please register

" and I could not click on the links earlier, seems to be okay now.

[dx100uk]

there are not templates

 

simply use the enhanced google search box on this page

[notpayingapenny]

Here is my draft defence ready to go:

 

1. It is denied that the defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

 

2.It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant, or broke any such contract.

 

4.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. Hence it is denied that the defendant has any debt to settle with the claimant.

 

5. 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.

 

Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

[FTMDave]

That's excellent - well done.  I've changed the order a bit just to make the points flow more logically.  If there are no other comments, file it tomorrow.

 

1.  It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.   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.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper claimant is the landowner

 

3.  It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms and conditions set on private land.

 

4.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant, or broke any such contract.

 

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.

.

[AndyOrch]

Not sure about the "  The proper Claimant is the landowner. "  requires re phrasing or removing completely.

 

And any defence, no matter what for.... must put the claimant to strict proof to prove any alleged claim.

 

 

Content of defence

16.5

(1) In his defence, the defendant must state –

(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; 

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16

 

Andy

[notpayingapenny]

Thank you Andy. For the reason that you are raising, I wonder if I should modify this in some way:

"2.   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.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper claimant is the landowner" because my case is about stopping at a bus stop/stand rather than a car park.

[dx100uk]

you don't know what the contract says...until they disclose it. introduce speculation till then.

[notpayingapenny]

So I should just leave the paragraph as it is? Talks about " the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner" and the situation in question is not about a car park but a bus stop incident being charged  as  a car park incident!

[AndyOrch]

I will run through your topic in the morning and post my thoughts and possible amendments to the defence...the above just didn't sit right with the way its worded and didn't bolt all the doors on their claim.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

not due till the 31st so plenty of time to get this better worded for all PPC Claimforms too.

[AndyOrch]

Particulars of claim for reference only

 

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

 

2.The defendant's vehicle XXXX, was identified in the Robin Hood Airport Doncaster on the 12/10/2020 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a restricted bus stop / stand.

 

3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.

 

4. The terms and conditions upon  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.

 

Amount Claimed £160

court fees £25

legal rep fees £50

Total Amount £235

 

Defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply  with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 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 I 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 if I was the driver at the time.

 

4.  Paragraph 5 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Doncaster-Sheffield 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.

 

6 Not withstanding the above on xx xxxx 2021 I made a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for the claimant to disclose its necessary evidence in support if its claim. To this date the claimant has failed to respond to said request

 

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.

 

 

 

.

 

 

[notpayingapenny]

Andy this sounds like a technical knockout punch! Thank you. I hope they will put their tail between their legs and back off!

[AndyOrch]

Feel free to add remove...but that's the basic layout for a CPR compliant defence...you admit or you deny you put to strict proof to evidence.

Anything you do not deny is taken as an admittance under UK law...hence the opening paragraph.

 

An initial defence must put the claimant to task to show that this is not going to be easy and that a a claimant must provide all evidence and reasoning as to why its claim is valid.

 

If you wish to add that you sent a CPR 31.14 then insert it at a relevant point

[notpayingapenny]

Because they never bothered to respond, I would have liked to add that I sent a CPR 31.14 if this will further weaken their case by showing that they are not compliant or confident with their own case. But I am not sure my addition to the well written defence you did would not spoil the broth.

[AndyOrch]

I've added a point 6 ...complete the date.

[notpayingapenny]

Thank you ever so much. The original particulars of claim had no numbered paragraphs. Should I therefore include the numbering with my defence for reference?

[AndyOrch]

Im aware.....but if you number the particulars its easier to respond.....the judge will have a copy of the particulars to refer to.

[notpayingapenny]

So should I just exclude the original and yet still number my paragraphs which use numbers to refer to the original (defence references are also to numbered points on the claim)? I am allowed 122 lines for my defence so including the original while numbering it for reference should be okay too, right?

[AndyOrch]

You don't include the particulars above...that's why it states for reference only so I can refer to it when drafting.

[notpayingapenny]

Ready to submit the defence it thus (please say if it looks good and complete now. I replaced "I" with the Defendant):

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is 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 if the Defendant was the driver at the time.

 

4.  Paragraph 5 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Doncaster-Sheffield 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.

 

6. Not withstanding the above on 09/05/2021, the Defendant made a request pursuant to CPR 31.14 for the Claimant to disclose the necessary evidence in support of their claim. To this date the claimant has failed to respond to said request.

 

[AndyOrch]

+ 

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.

[notpayingapenny]

I have saved the defence text on the mcol site. Will click send in tomorrow.