VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No stopping - JLA Liverpool Airport ***Claim Discontinued***

[dx100uk]

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.

Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...

You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

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 a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim

type your name ONLY

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.

………….
 

[maximus81]

Thanks.

 

I filed AOS with MCOL on 7th Feb.

I posted CPR 31.14 letter on Feb 8th. (No response yet)

 

I believe my deadline is Feb 22nd for filing a defence.

 

regards.

[dx100uk]

which you do not miss

 

100's of no stopping threads 

std defence is in each one .

 

 

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

I aim to file my defence with MCOL this weekend or latest Monday (deadline Tuesday 22nd).

 

I have found a couple of std defence from other threads, should I just tailor either of these in line with my particulars? Point 6 in the bottom one looks relevant to me as i was first 'invoiced' in 2017.

 

I have not had a response back from solicitors from my CPR 31:14 request but as advised, am not waiting. Is it literally just a case of tweaking some wording and submitting?

 

thanks.

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 

 

3.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

4.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  

 

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.

 

1.  It is admitted that the Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxx.

 

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 the 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 Claimant's alleged recovery costs include an additional £60 for “debt collection charge”.  The aforementioned sum represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason.

 

6.  The Claimant's invoice was issued in early April 2018 and it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for nearly four years and to claim 8% interest for that whole period.

 

7.  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]

File this one -

 

1.  It is admitted that the Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxx.

 

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 the 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 Claimant's alleged recovery costs include an additional £60 for “debt collection charge”.  The aforementioned sum represents an attempt at double recovery, which may be considered an abuse of process, and the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim ab initio for that reason.

 

6.  The Claimant's invoice was issued in July 2017 and it is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for four and a half years and to claim 8% interest for that whole period.

 

7.  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.

[maximus81]

Thanks - actually point 5 i don't think is specific to me unless i could find it somewhere in one of their letters that they were charging me for debt collection.

 

Should I just take this out or refer to any of the below?

 

Amount Claimed: £160.00

court fees:  £35.00

legal rep fees £50.00

Total Amount: £245.00

[FTMDave]

They should be suing you for £100 but have invented £60 Unicorn Food Tax, so file the defence as is.

[maximus81]

Understood - thanks.

Defence submitted.

Just to add I selected NOT to pursue a counterclaim.

 

 

[dx100uk]

You never counter claim..nothing to claim against them

 

Dx

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

just to update I have now received a pack of 'evidence' from the solicitors.

 

Includes a copy of the snotty letter I sent to them with the word "pursue!" written on it. plus printouts of signage, old letters, a signed 'contract' from the landowner, and photos. 

[FTMDave]

This will probably be Simple Simon trying to put the wind up you, which we've seen countless examples of (although this seems a new trick).

 

Can you scan & upload Simon's tripe please?  It might ironically be to your benefit if it turns out the contract or the sign is pants.

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

I have attached from what I was sent, 3 examples of no stopping signs.

 

In addition to this there were other printouts of signs (Private Property, No parking on pedestrian route, yellow hatches, disabled bays etc.)

 

Have scanned the letter and contract with landowner.

 

There are also a pile of other documents, such as the original PCN, then a reminder, and letter of claim etc.

 

no stopping signs.pdf

 

Letter & Contract.pdf

 

thanks.

Edited February 24, 2022 by maximus81
replies were merged so deleted some comments.

[FTMDave]

Yes, this is a new spin on Simon's trick of trying to put the wind up his opponent.  Ignore.

 

The Witness Statement is from 2015, it isn't current, and nor is it a contract.

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

i've now recieved from the court a questionnaire N180 which must be filed by 11th March.

 

I've looked through similar threads namely Alaska101 for some further intel, but for now, I just compete this form and return by post  asap? 

 

Any hints here on filling the form correctly at all please?

[dx100uk]

 

 

3 copies

yes to mediation (unless you filed our Statute Barred Defence OR this is a claim for a Private Parking Ticket)

1 wit you

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to sols (omit phone/sig/email)

1 for your file

 

dx

[lookinforinfo]

That so called "contract" they showed you is a joke and bears no resemblance to the actual contract.

 

For a start the contract only applies to the "car parks, unadopted roads and land on the airport.  You were not stopped in a car park or an unadopted road or any land. 

 

You stopped on a main road with its own bye laws and was subject to the Road Traffic Act.

 

Therefore the contract does not cover them for where you stopped and as it is not relevant land it is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 so liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

 

In any event a Witness Statement does not even begin  to qualify as sufficient to be called a contract. It necessitates signatures by directors of both companies plus being signed by two witnesses  under the Companies Act 2006.

Edited February 28, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

when declaring preferred county court and reasons why, is there a good reason why to declare on the form?

 

thanks.

[dx100uk]

nearest usually but which CC is totally upto you.

[maximus81]

I have put local, but it asks for reasons why as well.

 

I haven't just wondered if I should.

[dx100uk]

eh@?

you name the court you want the hearing at...

you give the reason as ....my most local county court

 

no-one else has ever had this issue...

 

dont forget to copy in their sols and DON'T give them email/phone/sig on their copy.

 

dx

 

[maximus81]

Thanks - it's not an issue.

 

The form specifies to name your preferred court AND a reason why.

 

I was merely wondering if there's a good reason why, other than being most local. You never know...

[Gick]

In some circumstances a court not local to you may be preferred, such as if you are working away from home all week, or you have a disability and  your local court has not yet entered the 21st century etc.

[maximus81]

VCS Letter - cease of ELMS.pdf

 

Hi,

 

I sent my N180 form to the court today 1st class (deadline 11th)

 

Had not sent a copt to sols yet, only able to print a copy ready for tomorrow's post.

 

Today I received this from VCS advising they are now representing themselves and to only correspond with them.

 

So that's BW Legal in 2017, ELMS Legal in 2021/22, and now they represent themselves.

 

Do you think it changes anything in terms of the case? 

 

And I take it the offer to settle for £185 is also a no go.

 

thanks.

[dx100uk]

it a no go yes,

std practice for solicitors to run away from simple simon on these no stopping court claim

you'll see it in most if you go READ plenty of no stopping threads.

N180 to simple simon now then

ensure NO sig/phone/email!!

 

he'll employ a local rep that will know NOTHING about the case till the day before

you should win hands down.

 

 

[maximus81]

Hi,

 

I've had mediation date confirmed today for April 25th for this case. Have had a look through some threads for some steer and seen this comment from DX100uk:

 

you agree to MEDIATION on the n180

you continue to do so right until the very day the actual telephone MEDIATION call takes place.

 

when it does, the same n180 question is asked...

have you enough information etc etc.

. it's THEN when, if you have not received something that is important to your decision, like say no DN's comes into play...

so you then refuse MEDIATION by saying no, ....i do not have enough information to make an informed decision to enter into MEDIATION.

 

the idea is you are seen to enter into 'the spirit' of MEDIATION by giving the claimant as much time as possible to give you what is needed....

that will bode well for you later on.

 

That's not a no stopping claim but would i take the same approach? On the day presumably aim to end the call on grounds I have not enough information to proceed?

 

thanks.