VCS claim form received for parking at work

[simon081286]

Hi all, I have received a court claim form regarding a parking ticket issued by VCS at my place of work; and just seeking some input guidance while drafting my defence (I'm using the template and some standard point, so it's mainly what are the best point(s) to argue.

Apologies in advance for the length of this....

Background:
I've worked for a company since 2010 where we are entitled to free parking. In 2011 we moved offices and entered into a lease agreement with the landlord entitling the company and its employees the use of 47 assigned parking spaces.
In 2016 the management company of the business park decided to contract the management of the parking to VCS- this was due to other businesses parking in the wrong spaces (so they palmed it off). We all got shoddy laminated permits with our company logo on and told to display them.

Ticket:
I had a courtesy car one day for work back in 2016 and didn't have my permit on display. Received a ticket......ran them around a bit through the dispute email address, saying I didn't recognise the vehicle reg etc. (they had confirmed through the courtesy car provider that I was the driver) could they provide more details; and done this a few times with various solicitors that have acted the case on VCS' behalf. Eventually I called one of the solicitors to say that I am an employee of the company that lease the spaces and, as such, I am entitled to park there.

Fast foward to Aug 2019 and I received a LBA followed by a claim form.

I have acknowledged, and am now pulling together my defence (due by 7th Sept).

My understanding/questions for defence:
- I believe that the company I work for's lease, allowing it and its employees to occupy the assigned parking spaces trump the VCS con.
- I have managed to get hold of the contract between the freeholder c/o the site management company and VCS, which states the freeholder is the 'occupier' of the site in the first couple of lines.......does that seem correct? I would have thought my employers are the occupier (under the lease) and the landlord the owners.
- Said contract also states VCS will manage the parking according to allocations, which I was in correctly (albeit without permit displayed), is this worth mentioning in my defence? I.e. the whole purpose of them is to ensure not parked in incorrect space, which I wasn't.

Any input / suggestions / clarification would be much appreciated........I've had sleepless nights thinking of various ways to defend what to me is a ludicrous charge.

Thanks!

[ostell]

Shame the driver seems to gave been identified, would have failed on the failure to send hire documents.

What do the signs say? What does contract between your employer and landholders for parking say about having to display a permit?

[simon081286]

Hi Ostell, the signs are the standard (?) Private land, Parking permit must be displayed etc.

The lease was signed way back in 2011 when it was up to each business to manage its own allocated parking (with help of site management), so theres absolutely no mention of any permits, or other restrictions/covenants associated with the spaces.

[ostell]

No such thing as a standard sign. If it says permit holders only then it may be a forbidding sign in that there is not an offer of a contract to park for non permit holders. Depends on the rest of the wording. Without a contract there can be no breach.

See if you can get a copy of that original contract and thus show that no permit is required

[simon081286]

I will check on the current signage wording and let you know……though I’m sure they’ve been changed since 2016, and I don’t have a picture of what was there then (I’m hunting around though as I’m sure I recall someone in the office taking a picture when they went up).

If it helps, in the contract between VCS and the site management co. on behalf of the freeholder, it states:

3. The Company will:
3.1 Erect and maintain warning signs (“Signs”) at the Car Park indicating that it is private property for the use of VALID PERMIT HOLDERS IN ALLOCATED MARKED BAYS and there is to be NO PARKING ON THE RAMP, (additional terms and conditions may also be stated including the Charge) and that vehicles found to be in breach of any other stated terms and conditions will be liable for the payment of a parking charge (“Charge”). The Signs will act as an extension to this agreement and may be altered in content at the Company’s discretion from time to time.


…..that agreement is dated only 2 months prior to my charge, so the wording stated is likely that used on the old signs.

I’ll update with current signage wording when I can go get a photo of it.

[simon081286]

Small update/ further info (hopefully golden nugget!):

I have come across an email from the site management company that was sent 14/06/2016 advising that the parking signs would be installed that day, with a view to going live on 20/06/2016.

The date of my charge on the claim form, under Particulars of Claim, is 08/05/2016!

Is it reasonable to assume, and argue that there were no signs at the date of the charge?

[simon081286]

Further small update:

The date of the charge was actually 05/08/2016, not the 08/05/2016 stated in the claim form. So at the date stated on the form, the signs weren't up, VCS weren't in force, and I didn't have the courtesy car either.

Is it valid to defend on that basis, or could they say 08/05/2016 means 5th Aug 2016?

Thanks.

[ostell]

But of course. There was no active contract at the time. They have to get it correct

[simon081286]

Thanks Ostell.

Do you think I list the following in my defence:
- no active contract
- no signage
- not the driver of the vehicle at that time

Or just simply the no active contract?

[ostell]

Everything in. You can not add later without having to pay a fee.

[simon081286]

Thanks Ostell.

I have drafted the following defence if you / anybody else would be kind enough to have a read over and let me know your thoughts. In particular, I 'borrowed' some of this from a resident lease parking defence......so I'm not 100% sure if it makes sense from a employer lease/defendant is employee angle.

I appreciate all the help!


Defence:

Preliminary
1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity, are false and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

2. The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct.

Background
3. It is denied that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxxx xxx which is the subject of these proceedings.

4. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of vehicle registration mark xxxx xxx on the claimed Parking Charge issue date stated in the Particulars.

5. It is denied that any signs were in place at the date stated in the Particulars.

6. It is strongly denied that the Defendant agreed to pay within 28 days, or has ever agreed that any liability exists.

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
7. Furthermore, it is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting a vehicle to be parked by the terms of the lease, which permits the parking of vehicle(s) on the land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court.

8. The Defendant avers that any operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by employees and visitors of the Defendant’s company of employment, and (ii) that parking easements cannot unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Claimant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9. Accordingly it is denied that:
9.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
9.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
9.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

10. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

11. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

12. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

[simon081286]

I have also located the original signs at the time of the charge, if it's worth amending the defense to refer to.....

[ostell]

Here's some text I saved about forbidding signs. Yes try and include it but check the references for yourself

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

[simon081286]

Thanks Ostell.......I wasnt sure if it was a bit contradictive- I.e. "there were no signs" followed by "the signs are forbidding".

I'll be research all quoted cases thoroughly (I was mainly asking if anything blatantly stood out), and I'll think about how to include the forbidding signs argument.

[simon081286]

**UPDATE**

It seems that VCS are pressing ahead with this. I received notification that my local court has been selected, and not their requested court, and that I now need to submit a witness statement by 22/11/2019.

I'm drafting the witness statement now, and was wondering what I do when discussing the parking event- I started describing the event that took place on 05/08/2016, however their claim is (incorrectly) for an event on 08/05/2016......do I leave it at explaining that there was no parking event on 08/05/2016, or describe the actual event on 05/08/2016?

Thanks in advance!