How do I deal with Claim form from Vechicle Control Services(VCS)

**ostell** · 23rd February 2020, 09:39:AM

You will get a CCJ recorded against you only IF they take it to court and only IF you lose and only IF you fail to pay within a month.

So can you post up the redacted PCN but leave the dates. And give a bit more detail

Acknowledge the claim after 5 days from date of issue using the details and password on the form. This gives you 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence to the court.*

*

**Triciaorex** · 23rd February 2020, 13:22:PM

Thank you for your reply. I have attached most of the letters I received from VCS. PARKING CHARGE NOTICE (PCN).pdf

I replied the NTK letter with the words below

"I was not driving the car at the time as I had lent the car to someone else that day. I understand that I am not obliged to provide details of the identity of the driver of the car. Due to this fact, I am not in any form of contract or liable for this parking charge. I am referring you back to your cctv to check the driver."

I replied to the letter before claims with

"I have received your Letter Before Claim dated

As far as I am aware, I do not owe Vehicle Services limited any money and I did not breach the terms and relating to the use of private land.

It must also be noted that this letter I received contained insufficient detail of your claim and failed to provide copies of evidence you rely upon. You have sent me a vague and un-evidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. An explanation of the cause of action
2. To explicitly state whether they are pursuing me as a keeper or the driver
3. To explicitly state whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed, the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to It and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me with a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
8. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other
11. Provide evidence that the spot the car was parked on is a private land as a pavement runs directly in line with it.

Until you have complied with its obligations and provided this information, I request that cease and desist from contacting me - this is now unwarranted harassment and you are causing significant distress to me and my family.

With this letter, I have sent the reply form stating I do not owe the debt that you have vaguely described in your letter."

Many thanks

**ostell** · 23rd February 2020, 16:03:PM

What were the dates, you've deleted them.

As the keeper you can be held liable for the actions of the driver if they comply with the requirements of POFA. They have failed to give the period of parking, they have failed to make the required statement of keeper liability correctly, 9 (2) (f)

Photos of the signs please to see if the driver agreed to extra payments.

Start looking at defences both in this forum and the pepipoo forum

*

**Triciaorex** · 23rd February 2020, 19:18:PM

Contravention date was september last year, the PCN was issued 2 days later.

Claim date on the letter was 19/02

There was no payment required for the parking, it is for valid permit holders

Pictures attached for signs and parking area

IMG_4433(1).jpg

IMG_4427.jpg

IMG_4419(1).jpg

View album “Recents”.png

Attached Files

IMG_4419(1).jpg (22.9 KB, 2 views)

**ostell** · 23rd February 2020, 20:21:PM

Here's* an item about the sign:

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.

Look for other defences and pist up on here for critique

*

**Triciaorex** · 2nd March 2020, 18:24:PM

Please can someone help have a look at my defence for the cae above

Is it worth me adding I am not the driver of the car the time as I am truly not but I was a the passenger?

I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a
Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2) (a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case Ł100. The claim includes an additional Ł75.50, for which no
calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

5. 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 and the ticket was issued illegally. 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.

6. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike
out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

**Triciaorex** · 5th March 2020, 06:32:AM

Please can someone help have a look at my defence for the case above before sending?

Is it worth me adding I am not the driver of the car the time as I am truly not but I was a the passenger?

I am the defendant in this matter and deny liability for the entirety of the claim. The Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant on the following grounds

1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant either as alleged in the Particulars of Claim or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant “was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle(s)”. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a
Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16, 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

3. The Notice To Keeper does not specify the period of parking, as required by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Section 8 (2) (a)&(b) and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.

4. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case Ł100. The claim includes an additional Ł75.50, for which no
calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

5. 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 and the ticket was issued illegally. 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.

6. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike
out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 3.4.

How do I deal with Claim form from Vechicle Control Services(VCS)