That's disappointing, I wonder how much the judge earns per hour in that case I'll go with: Ordinary Cost Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £90.00 Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00 Sub Total - £105.00 Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00 £ Total Costs Claimed - £200.00 That's a nice round number...

How does this look? Ordinary Cost Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £148.25 Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00 Sub Total - £163.25 Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00 £ Total Costs Claimed - £258.25

Looks like Monday's the day (as I've had no correspondence to the contrary), I've re-read my witness statement and feel I have my arguments clear in my head...is there anything else I need to be doing.checking/reading (I have the weekend to prep). One thing I wasn't clear on - I've had to take the day off work to do this, should I win, can I make any sort of claim for costs, if so, what's the best way to ask?

SAR's have all gone to the original creditors, I will draft CCA's and get them sent to the current debt owners. I have been reading a bit, absolutely appreciate any and all guidance, but know you're busy people and don't have the time to do this for me so have tried to do as much as I can myself, now at a point where I'm fairly sure of the journey, just need a little guidance. Will keep you posted on what happens next...

Thanks for the reply dx, I know I've been a total mug, but the plan is to try and put that right . I think the take out dates should be there, for clarity, the headers for the table in my first post are: Current debt owner; default date; start date; original debtors; remaining balance. I've asked for copies of the original agreements in my SAR requests, but will send formal CCA letters. Just to be clear I CCA the original debtors not the current owners?

Hi All, After having received some excellent help with a Parking charge Notice, I started to explore the site and realise I've been had like a kipper with my debts. Long story short, my wife and I built up significant debts and in 2015 payments became unsustainable at which point after being declined for a consolidating loan with our bank (NatWest), they informally suggested contacting StepChange. We did this and have been on a DMP since October 2015 which we have paid every month since.* *We've not made 2 payments in that time, both were agreed with StepChange and were so we could use the money to cover short term issues (car repairs) I want to get these sorted/cleared as we'd like to move next year (or when the defaults have expired) and details of our debts are attached. Defaults started in December 2015 and should be due to start falling off from the end of the year (which is why I'm trying to get on the front foot so we're in as good a position as we can be for when they do eventually disappear). I haven't made any inroads into CCA's yet because I've sent SAR's to all the original lenders first, there's two reasons for this, first I want to pursue charges (as I suspect I may be able to get some of the outstanding amounts written down to the point of being gone) and second because I'm concerned about some of the default dates being incorrect. For instance, the loan originally from NatWest was managed via the DMP at the same time as all the other debts (including credit cards from Natwest), the CC's have a default date of Dec 2015, but the loan is May 2016 (I don't have the default letter, hence the SAR request). Not sure if this is relevant, but there are two debts that have been cleared - a student loan with Erudio and another NatWest overdraft that was being managed by PRA. Also, the Barclaycard debt has never been defaulted (not sure why?!) Any and all advice will be gratefully received! PRA Group 31/05/2016 16/11/2012 Natwest loan £5,800.27 Wescot - Cabot 22/12/2015 17/08/2011 Natwest CC £1,922.63 Link Financial n/a 23/05/2013 Barclaycard £1,872.30 Wescot - Cabot 22/12/2015 12/03/2010 Natwest CC £1,487.52 Cabot Financial 22/12/2015 22/06/1998 Natwest CC £1,122.27 PRA Group 30/06/2016 17/01/2012 MBNA £1,004.50 PRA Group 31/07/2016 17/07/2006 Natwest OD £23.16

Not sure he's dotted any i's or crossed any t's as have just noticed his latest correspondence (which came by email) was only sent to me and ELMS, but is addressed to the court. I fully appreciate it could have been sent to them separately, but the subject line doesn't suggest it's been forwarded. I was tempted to think he may have been trying to be clever and throw me off guard, but given his rebuttal on the planning permission seems to be the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly...I'm not so sure

Supplementary statement received from Walli today, I'm having scanning problems at the minute, so the formatting is all off, but hopefully the content remains unaffected (and I've redacted the pertinent parts!). His biggest issue seems to be that I haven't made a statement of truth? As always any and all advice on how to respond is very welcome. Supplementary claimant case.pdf

Apologies for the silence folks and thanks so much for all the input, really valued. I won't bore you with the details, but printing issues meant I wasn't able to refine as per LFI's excellent post above, I did proof read before printing so had caught and corrected the mistakes. I received an emailed version of the Claimant's WS from Walli last night (I hadn't given him my email, but presume he lifted it from the MCOL form?!), amusingly he added the wrong time for the hearing in his subject header which I'm planning to take some delight in mentioning if we get in front of a judge. Do I return the favour (and copy him in) with the correct hearing time?

Thanks Gick, square brackets are in para 15: 15. The Claimant in paragraph 19 of the WS details the ANPR camera system used within the Car Park. The ANPR cameras are not infallible its success rate varies between 93% and 98% as confirmed here [do I add link or add documents to WS?]

I'd appreciate any thoughts around paragraph 15 (part in square brackets). Due date is Wednesday 9 June, I can email court copy, but won't be able to post VCS copy until tomorrow, will that be acceptable (first class) with proof of posting dated 8 June? Or am I better sending guaranteed next day? Also, received notification from the court a hearing has been scheduled for Monday 5 July, so wasn't sure if a couple of days grace with the WS might be acceptable? Thanks as always!

Apologies for the radio silence, my (hopefully) final version is below: Introduction 1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX Locus Standi 2. The Claimant in paragraph 34 of the WS states ‘Following their appointment, the Claimant erected warning notices throughout the development’ A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission having been granted allowing signs to be erected at the address of the site referenced in the contract (item ref: MW1 in the Claimant’s WS). The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case. 3. The Claimant in paragraph 35 of the WS states a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle (item ref: MW1 in the Claimant’s WS) as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme. 4. Furthermore the Claimant acknowledges that this contracts has been in effect from 7 November 2011. 5. In Paragraph 2 of item MW1 the contract states ‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011’ 6. The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is there proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2021 making the contract null and void. 7. The Claimant in paragraph 60 of the WS refers to the warning signs within the Car Park. There may be warning signs all over the car park but not one of them has been authorised by the local Council under the Town and Country [advertisements] regulations 2007. 8. This puts the Defendant in breach of their agreement with Scottish Widows where they agree to comply with the IPC Code of Conduct 2.42 Be compliant with all necessary legislation. 9. The Claimant in paragraph 61 of the WS refers to Parking Eye v Beavis, in his summary of this case Lord Neuberger stated ‘111] " ........And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced."’ As this was a Supreme Court judgement, all lower Courts must follow 10. This means the Defendant does not comply with DVLA terms either. The Defendant assure all three companies that they are compliant when they are not. Their right to apply for motorists data from the DVLA relies on them being compliant with IPC Code of Conduct. So it calls into question their right to even have applied to the DVLA for the Defendants data which would be a breach of GDPR. The Contract 11. The Claimant in paragraph 9 of the WS states ‘Upon the vehicle entering the Land, the driver accepted the Contract and agreed to be bound by those terms advertised.’ The driver did not accept the contract by entering the car park. Firstly, the sign at the entrance does not lay out the terms of their contract it is just an invitation to treat. Secondly, the acceptance of a contract would not be until the driver had paid the required fee or if it is a free car park then the driver can stay for at least ten minutes without having accepted the contract. 12. The Claimant in paragraph 11 of the WS states ‘There is sufficient and adequate signage for the Terms and Conditions to have been brought to the attention of any motorist wishing to use the car park.’ Whilst there are sufficient signs around the car park, the actual fee claimed for a breach of their terms is written in white on a blue background while the Terms and Conditions are written on a white background with blue writing. This appears to be a separate part of the notice, unrelated to the Terms and Conditions (Claimant evidence ref: MW1) Breach of contract 13. The Claimant in paragraph 12 of the WS states ‘the vehicle was parked for longer than the maximum period permitted.’ The defendant denies the driver stayed for longer than one hour. 14. The Claimant in paragraph 13 of the WS submits documents (item ref: MW2) as evidence of the vehicle in breach. The documents on MW2 are incorrect. 15. The Claimant in paragraph 19 of the WS details the ANPR camera system used within the Car Park. The ANPR cameras are not infallible its success rate varies between 93% and 98% as confirmed here [do I add link or add documents to WS?] Keeper liability 16. The Claimant in paragraph 25 of the WS acknowledges they did not comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (4 and 5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred. 17. Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of the POFA 2012, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended 18. Exhibit 3 is the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant, this shows an issue date of 9 January, as this is 16 days after the date the alleged contravention occurred the Notice to Keeper was issued outside of POFA 2012 and is therefore not valid and unenforceable. 19. Furthermore in paragraph 26 of the WS the Claimant admits that the NTK failed to comply with PoFA 2012 [sent out too late] thus they have no claim on the keeper. 20. The Claimant in paragraph 27 of the WS submits ‘that the Defendant has been in receipt of ample correspondence from the Claimant in respect of the unpaid PCN.’ there is nothing in PoFA that requires the keeper to contact the Claimant or even advise them who was driving. At no time does the claimant state whether he is pursuing the keeper as the keeper or as the driver. The Claimant carries on to say that there are number of ways notwithstanding to pursue the Defendant without actually specifying any. Maybe the Claimant doesn't know any, but what cannot be done is to pursue the keeper. 21. The Claimant in paragraph 27 of the WS submits that the onus was on the Defendant to advise the Claimant whether he was the driver at the time of the alleged contravention. The keeper decided that as they were not liable for the debt because there was no keeper liability and because the car had complied with the Terms and Conditions there was no requirement to enter into a dialogue knowing that the Defendant would not cease pursuit. 22. The Claimant in paragraph 46 of the WS the Claimant suggests why they believe the Defendant is still liable for the parking charge, this is a gross breach of PoFA. The Claimant has already stated that they failed to comply with the Act so there is no Keeper liability regardless of whether the Defendant took "appropriate action" or not. The Defendant has scoured PoFA and can find no reference to the Keeper where there is no liability to be then liable for the debt for not taking appropriate action. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of said provision in PoFA. It would seem risking being held in contempt of court that anyone would sign a Statement of Truth after such an outrageous claim. 23. The Claimant in paragraph 47 of the WS again asserts their assumption that the responsibility to provide the name of the driver rests with the Keeper. The Keeper under PoFA is only invited by a parking company to provide them with the name of the driver if they were not the driver themselves. There is no compunction upon the keeper to provide the driver's name. This would appear to be a grey area for the Claimant and there is a question of how knowledgeable the Claimant is on the question of Keeper liability. “Double dipping” - no breach of parking regulations 24. Exhibit 1 is a screenshot from Google Maps. This shows the Defendant’s movements on the 24 December 2019. 25. Exhibit 1 shows the Defendant visited The Moor from 11.16 to 11.47 then returned to their place of residence arriving at 12:09pm where they remained until 14:09. 26. Exhibit 1 later shows that the Defendant visited The Moor for a second time from 14:33 to 15:01. 27. The Claimant in production AA1 of their WS presents Signage Artwork, this signage states ‘Maximum Stay 1 Hour Commencing on Entry - No return within 2 hours’ 28. Therefore, either the Defendant was parked in the car park in line with the stated rules; or the Defendant was not driving the car at the time in question and can only be pursued under keeper liability. Counting two visits to a car park as one is known as “double dipping” and is a common defect of ANPR technology. 29. The Claimant, in paragraph 27 states ‘The Defendant has failed to respond to these Notices and therefore the Claimant has pursued the Defendant as the liable party’ 30. Exhibit 4 is a letter dated 16 April 2020 sent to the Claimant upon receipt of their correspondence titled ‘Letter Before Action’. Exhibit 5 is proof of postage obtained when the letter was posted, also dated 16 April 2020. 31. At no point did the Claimant acknowledge this letter nor investigate the Defendant's claim that the vehicle registered was not parked at the times the alleged contravention occurred. Double recovery of costs 32. The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims. 33. In case the Claimant tries to state that this case has somehow created extra unforeseen costs for the company, the fact is that the Claimant's company has a Legal Department as evidenced by its letter to the Defendant of 3 May (Exhibit 6) and the company employs a paralegal as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's WS. Presumably it is the normal daily job of these employees to write legal letters. 34. Furthermore, in ParkingEye Limited V Somerfield Stores Limited (8MA91364), Judge Hegarty stated in paragraph 419 ‘It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.’ It can be reasonably presumed that the Defendant would know of this judgement so once again, it would seem risking being held in contempt of court that anyone would sign a Statement of Truth after another outrageous claim. Conclusion 35. The Defendant was not parked at the site at the times of the alleged contravention. 36. The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale. 37. The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate. 38. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site. 39. The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed

Thanks all, WS not posted yet, will endeavour to update this week and will post/email to court next Monday (deadline is 9 June)

Right, back on it this morning. Evidence pack attached. I'll edit my WS and upload shortly. Evidence pack v2.pdf In the county court at Sheffield Claim No: Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction 1. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX Locus Standi 2. The Claimant in paragraph 34 of the WS states ‘Following their appointment, the Claimant erected warning notices throughout the development’ A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission having been granted allowing signs to be erected at the address of the site referenced in the contract (item ref: MW1 in the Claimant’s WS). The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case. 3. The Claimant in paragraph 35 of the WS states a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle (item ref: MW1 in the Claimant’s WS) as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme. 4. Furthermore the Claimant acknowledges that this contracts has been in effect from 7 November 2011. 5. In Paragraph 2 of item MW1 the contract states ‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011’ 6. The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is there proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2021 making the contract null and void. Keeper liability 7. The Claimant in paragraph 25 of the Witness Statement (WS) acknowledges they did not comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (4 and 5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred. 8. Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of the POFA 2012, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended 9. Exhibit 3 is the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant, this shows an issue date of 9 January, as this is 16 days after the date the alleged contravention occurred the Notice to Keeper was issued outside of POFA 2012 and is therefore not valid and unenforceable. “Double dipping” - no breach of parking regulations 10. Exhibit 1 is a screenshot from Google Maps. This shows the Defendant’s movements on the 24 December 2019. 11. Exhibit 1 shows the Defendant visited The Moor from 11.16 to 11.47 then returned to their place of residence arriving at 12:09pm where they remained until 14:09. 12. Exhibit 1 later shows that the Defendant visited The Moor for a second time from 14:33 to 15:01. 13. The Claimant in production AA1 of their WS presents Signage Artwork, this signage states ‘Maximum Stay 1 Hour Commencing on Entry - No return within 2 hours’ 14. Therefore, either the Defendant was parked in the car park in line with the stated rules; or the Defendant was not driving the car at the time in question and can only be pursued under keeper liability. Counting two visits to a car park as one is known as “double dipping” and is a common defect of ANPR technology. 15. The Claimant, in paragraph 27 states ‘The Defendant has failed to respond to these Notices and therefore the Claimant has pursued the Defendant as the liable party’ 16. Exhibit 4 is a letter dated 16 April 2020 sent to the Claimant upon receipt of their correspondence titled ‘Letter Before Action’. Exhibit 5 is proof of postage obtained when the letter was posted, also dated 16 April 2020. 17. At no point did the Claimant acknowledge this letter nor investigate the Defendant's claim that the vehicle registered was not parked at the times the alleged contravention occurred. Double recovery of costs 18. The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification. This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims. 19. In case the Claimant tries to state that this case has somehow created extra unforeseen costs for the company, the fact is that the Claimant's company has a Legal Department as evidenced by its letter to the Defendant of 3 May (Exhibit 6) and the company employs a paralegal as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's WS. Presumably it is the normal daily job of these employees to write legal letters. Conclusion 20. The Defendant was not parked at the site at the times of the alleged contravention. 21. The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale. 22. The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate. 23. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site. 24. The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land. 25. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed.

Apologies all, been a fraught day. To answer some of the q's posed. @FTMDave - the covering letter says Litigation department (presume that's the same thing?). I'll endeavour to get the missing pages scanned ASAP, I did scan it all earlier, but it didn't save . @LookingForInfo - there are two types of sign in the witness pack, I'll get them both on later when I get a chance to re-scan. The car park is free and the two pages previously scanned were the only bits of the parking contract that were in the witness pack. @dx100uk - I've removed the either or and made some other changes (another poster suggested adding in a line about being the registered keeper), so the intro now reads as: Introduction 1. I am xxx the named defendant in this matter and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all. 2. I confirm I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxXX xxx. 3. Except where specifically stated or admitted, no other element of this claim is admitted; the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of every element of its claim. 4. It is not admitted that the defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant to pay any parking charge or amount. Thanks so much for the input, I'm very grateful for any and all comments

Didn't realise that documents could be emailed to the court, that will save me a job as printing's a bit of a pain at the mo. I've just looked up the court on Gov.UK and it gives a standard email address (enquiries.sheffield.countycourt@justice.go.uk), presume that's the right one? Will check the VCS paperwork when I get in later

Can I trouble you with what is probably a trivial question? The deadline for submission of the witness statement is Wednesday 9 June, I'm on holiday from this Saturday for a week (return home 5 June). If I was to wait until Monday 7 June to post the witness statement, does that give it enough time to get there or should I be looking to send it before I go (conscious that conventional wisdom in many of the threads I've read seems to be to wait as long as possible to sent the witness statement)?

Thanks Dave, it felt wordy and long as I wrote it, but to an aspiring layman like me all 'legal stuff'always does seem wordy and long

Apologies for the delay, please see below for my first draft at a witness statement (I've removed personal data if there are gaps that maybe don't make sense), any and all comments welcome: In the county court at Claim No: Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction 1. I am the named defendant in this matter and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all. 2. Except where specifically stated or admitted, no other element of this claim is admitted; the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of every element of its claim. 3. It is not admitted that the defendant either directly or indirectly or whether by conduct express or consent entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant to pay any parking charge or amount. Locus Standi 4. Exhibit 1 is a screenshot from Google Maps. This shows the Defendant’s movements on the 24 December 2019. 5. Exhibit 1 shows the Defendant visited The Moor from 11.16 to 11.47 then returned to their place of residence arriving at 12:09pm where they remained until 14:09. 6. Exhibit 1 later shows that the Defendant visited The Moor for a second time from 14:33 to 15:01. 7. The Claimant in production AA1 of their WS presents Signage Artwork, this signage states ‘Maximum Stay 1 Hour Commencing on Entry - No return within 2 hours’ 8. Therefore, either the Defendant was parked in the car park in line with the stated rules; or the Defendant was not driving the car at the time in question and can only be pursued under keeper liability. 9. The Claimant in paragraph 25 of the Witness Statement (WS) acknowledges they did not comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (4 and 5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred. 10. Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of the POFA 2012, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended 11. Exhibit 3 is the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant, this shows an issue date of 9 January, as this is 16 days after the date the alleged contravention occurred the Notice to Keeper was issued outside of POFA 2012 and is therefore is not valid and unenforceable. 12. The Claimant, in paragraph 27 states ‘The Defendant has failed to respond to these Notices and therefore the Claimant has pursued the Defendant as the liable party’ 13. Exhibit 4 is a letter dated 16 April 2020 sent to the Claimant upon receipt of their correspondence titled ‘Letter Before Action’. Exhibit 5 is proof of postage obtained when the letter was posted, also dated 16 April 2020. 14. At no point did the Claimant acknowledge this letter nor investigate the Defendants claim that the vehicle registered was not parked at the times the alleged contravention occurred. Signage 15. The Claimant in paragraph 34 of the WS states ‘Following their appointment, the Claimant erected warning notices throughout the development’ A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission having been granted allowing sign to be erected at the address of the site referenced in the contract (exhibit MW1 in the Claimant’s WS. The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case. Contract 16. The Claimant in paragraph 35 of the WS states a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle (evidence ref: MW1) as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme. 17. Furthermore the Claimant acknowledges that this contracts has been in effect from 7 November 2011. 18. In Paragraph 2 of item MW1 the contract states ‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011’ 19. The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is their proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2021 making the contract null and void. Conclusion 20. The Defendant was not parked at the site at the times of the alleged contravention. 21. The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale. 22. The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate. 23. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site. 24. The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land. 25. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed

Apologies will get the other exhibits scanned when I can, it was mainly pictures of the car park at night and print outs of the signage (one below). One other q if I may, I have the completed N159 which I'll look to get posted this weekend (I have until 26 May), presume it's okay to send with the standard proof of posting I've used previously? Signage.pdf

Apologies for the delay, WS's need to be filed by 9 June, but bizarrely I received VCS's yesterday (so will also upload) Order should be attached. Notice of Allocation.pdf VCS statement Claimant case.pdf They also sent what I think is the contract for parking Parking contract.pdf

Apologies for once again waking this thread, but it appears we're off to court (unless VCS don't pay the fee by 26 May). I'll be doing my homework and submitting my defence for comment, but just wanted to ask an immediate q please. The papers state the judge wants to deal with this by papers, which I understand to mean neither party attends, but we submit all evidence and the judge makes a decision. Do I want this or do I want to be there?

Thanks all as always. Defence was filed on Tuesday and this morning I received a Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, presume I complete this and select 'No' to mediation?

Planning to file Wednesday so any last minute comments would be gratefully received

Thanks both, how about: [1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2. It is denied that the Defendant parked continuously in St Mary's Gate Retail Park Car Park at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. 3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred. 4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant and furthermore as the Claimant has failed to show any authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public or any evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and signage the defendant contends that the Claimant has no authority or agency therefore there can be no claim. 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.]