Vehicle Control Services, Gallagher Retail Park Scunthorpe Options

[Yogi_B]

Hello to everyone and I'm hoping for some definitive advice regarding VCS of Sheffield who operate the site at Gallagher Retail park, Scunthorpe adjacent to the ground of Scunthorpe United F.C.

I have received one of their 'invoices' after straying onto the park in a company registered van in December. The circumstances are that at the time I was employed by an agency for a well-known automotive parts company, delivering to clients all over Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the East Midlands. Instructions had been given to meet one of the clients to drop parts with him near to the retail park, rather than at his business premises, as the parts were needed straight away. On reaching the general area it had been impossible to immediately locate the client and the van was driven onto the retail park with a view to safely stopping in order to contact him by phone and pinpoint him. I was and still am to some degree entirely unfamiliar with the area.

The vehicle was a long wheelbase Sprinter van which is unsuitable to take into most car parks because of its size but as the area in question is a quiet road, bordered both sides by wasteland. Certainly as one enters the retail park, if there were any signs about stopping at the entrance, they were not very noticeable. Furthermore, there was no painted lines on the road surface or kerbs and I believe that any signs asking people not to stop or park are situated on the wasteland adjacent to the road but are not particularly clear. A stop was made within the park, to get out of the van and to make the necessary phone call, but having read the notice I then left the area, two or three minutes later minutes later, as shown by the 'invoice'.

The company received in January an' invoice' from VCS and I informed my manager at the time that this was not a valid notice, such as from the Police or Council, and that she should inform HR to stonewall VCS who had no power to demand the driver's details. Unfortunately, and much to my anger, this advice was not followed and coming back from holiday ten days ago, I found my 'invoice' dated 4th February from VCS, as I was registered as keeper of the vehicle on that day. I might add that since the end of January, my contract with this company expired and I no longer work for them.

Now I'm no expert on all this, which is why I'm asking for advice but from what I can glean from trawling through lots of threads is that VCS are not members of the BPA which means a Popla code is not an option to appeal but they use the not so Independant Appeals Service which are seemingly some kind of kangaroo court. My gut instinct is to totally ignore them and wait for the deluge of junk mail that will inevitably follow but as I believe things have changed somewhat regarding appeals etc, I ask your advice.

I certainly have no intention of paying a penny for a necessary two minute stop on a deserted back street road on a Tuesday lunchtime in December. I can understand that because of the proximity of Scunthorpe United, on match days some kind of restriction on parking might be suitable for this area but even so asking for £100, or £60 if paid quicker, does not represent an accurate charge for parking for two hours, let alone a stop of two minutes as borne out by their ,photographic evidence'.

Your comments and advice are greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by Yogi_B: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 - 14:57

[Advertisement]

[nosferatu1001]

Seems fine
You'll have seen that there are dozens of threads. The few regulars are pretty overwhelmed.

[Yogi_BB]

Seems fine
You'll have seen that there are dozens of threads. The few regulars are pretty overwhelmed.

Thanks for that, yes it's certainly been busy over the past few days.

[Umkomaas]

Seems fine
You'll have seen that there are dozens of threads. The few regulars are pretty overwhelmed.

Thanks for that, yes it's certainly been busy over the past few days years.

Fixed that for you!

[Yogi_BB]

Seems fine
You'll have seen that there are dozens of threads. The few regulars are pretty overwhelmed.

Thanks for that, yes it's certainly been busy over the past few days years.

Fixed that for you!

[Yogi_BB]

Hi,

County court claim has arrived dated 29th Oct so I've been online and acknowledged it, so by reckoning I've got until the end of next week to get my defence in. I've included my initial draft below can I ask that it be given some scrutiny.

I am [MY NAME], defendant in this matter.


1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the stopping of a [COLOUR MAKE MODEL] motor vehicle registration number [REG.] on --/--/2015 at the Gallagher Leisure Park, Scunthorpe that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant.

2. I deny any liability in respect of the claim for the following reasons, any one of which will be fatal to the claimant’s case.

3. There is no contract. The signage forbids stopping, even for an instant, and therefore there is no consideration. There have been a number of similar cases, including UKPC v Masterson and PCMUK v Hall et al. This therefore is a case of trespass, and in such cases only the land owner can sue, and then only for actual damages incurred. Where there is no damage a nominal £1 is usually awarded.

4. Even if the signage did offer a contract, the font size is too small and the words too many, to be safely read from a moving vehicle. They can therefore only be read whilst stopped and the normal time allowed in these situations is 5-10 minutes in car parks to allow for a genuine meeting of minds and for the driver to understand and comprehend any potential contract. There can therefore be no contract entered into by consideration.

5. Even if a contract was entered into by consideration, the signage does not contain the information required by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. As per clause 13(1), without this information any contract is not binding on the consumer.

6. Even if the contract was binding, the charge is a penalty and an unfair consumer charge. Parking Eye v Beavis is the leading authority on this. Although Parking Eye won the case, the judgment makes it clear that if the charge is not to be a penalty/unfair consumer charge, the driver must have ample time to be able to read and digest the contractual terms so that they can fairly agree to the terms. As this has not happened the charge is not saved from being a penalty/unfair consumer charge, and unless VCS have incurred costs of £100, the charge is excessive.

7. Additionally, it is suggested that the roadway in which the vehicle was stopped, shown in the images provided by the Claimant, was clearly disused, a no through road (although not signposted as such) and bordered in the main by scrubland. Therefore, the £100 parking charge is clearly unreasonable for the stoppage of a vehicle, as neither the Claimant nor landowner would experience loss of business as a result of these actions.

8. On the date of the alleged contravention the sign that the Claimant relies on as forming a contract with a driver(they have supplied a photograph) was deficient:

i) I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (IPC) Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time. Schedule 1 of the IPC codes of practice (COP) in relation to parking, stipulates that it should be made clear that a motorist is entering onto private land. The sign has no such information displayed. The whole roadway in question, save for the absence of yellow lines, is indistinguishable from that which precedes it.

ii) The sign shows the claimant as being a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) trade body. It was in fact a member of the IPC, having left the BPA 2014.

iii) The sign is poorly sited and makes mention of double yellow and red lines although none are present. The roadway before, which this is a continuation of, has double yellow lines. It is believed that this is an attempt to confuse anyone who had managed to read the sign into mistakenly stopping in the area and amounts to predatory tactics, a breach of its own trade body’s COP (Part B 14.1).

iv) Despite repeated requests both the Claimant and their legal representatives have refused to supply information as to the number and position of signage at the site on the date in question.

v) On a revisit to the site in late 2016 it was found that the Claimant had installed a number of repeater signs that were not in situ the year before which I believe reinforces my assertion that the signage was inadequate on the date in question.

vi) The Claimant’s operative took a total (over 33 seconds) of three photographs of the vehicle being stopped directly across from its own parked unmarked vehicle. In failing to identify themselves and point out the alleged contravention of conditions, they have acted in a predatory manner as well as failing to mitigate their alleged contravention.

vii) The Claimant’s legal representative has in correspondence tried to argue that a contract can be formed ‘by performance’, it is countered that given the lack of signage and its deficiencies this is impossible.

9. The proper claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

10. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

11. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.

12. Despite numerous requests of the Claimant to supply a copy of their contract or authority (even a redacted one), they have thus far refused.

13. It is believed that the claimant may say that they were authorised by a company called XXXXXX Limited to issue tickets for this roadway. It is a matter of public record that this company’s ownership of the area in question ceased during its accounting period September 2014-2015 when it was sold and it in effect became a dormant company, finally being dissolved in October 2017.

14. The case of VCS v Hedley (Case number C8DP3H0H) on 20/02/2017 in the County Court at Kingston upon Hull is brought to the attention of the court. In this case which concerns the same location (Gallagher Leisure Park) a significant part of the roadway in question was found to be a highway maintainable at public expense and as such the court found in favour of Mr Hedley. Despite pointing this out to the Claimant’s solicitors on several occasions (BW Legal who also represented in the Hedley case), they have declined to comment.

15. The Claimant has sought to inflate the claim by asking for interest to be added. My stance from the outset, to contest this claim, was made apparent and the fact that the Claimant has taken almost three years to get to this stage is their responsibility. Therefore their claim for interest has no justification.

16. The Protection of Freedoms Act does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has described them as "legal expenses". These cannot be recovered in the Small Claims Court regardless of the identity of the driver. Additionally on the photograph of the main sign (as mentioned in point 8) no additional charges are mentioned therein.

17. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

18. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.

19. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of his assertions. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and the court is invited to consider striking the matter out.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence, --/11/2018, are true.

Signed

[MY NAME]**
[/font][/font][color="#483D8B"][/color]

[ostell]

You have 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence into the court so a little time yet.

[Yogi_BB]

You have 33 days from the date of issue to get your defence into the court so a little time yet.

Thanks Ostell, by my reckoning 1st December which is a Saturday so was looking to post it recorded early next week. Any thoughts on the content of the defence?

[ostell]

You can send it as an email attachment. Saves all the printing and postage. Phone the court up and get the current email address.

[Yogi_BB]

You can send it as an email attachment. Saves all the printing and postage. Phone the court up and get the current email address.

Will do, thanks.

[nosferatu1001]

When the deadline is a weekend your actual deadline is the following monday at 4pm.

[Yogi_BB]

When the deadline is a weekend your actual deadline is the following monday at 4pm.

Hi Nosferatu. Is there anything to be gained by sending it in for the deadline, I was thinking of getting it to them before the end of next week? Is this defence good to go or do you have any ideas for changes that I could make?

[nosferatu1001]

There is nothing to be gained by sending it early, apart from ensuring it gets there on time!

14 - I dont see how this helps - it is eithe rpublic land or it isnt. If it IS public highway then SAY SO and point out they CANNOT have a contract to manage there. It then renders all the "standing" bit moot. If it IS NOT maintainable at public expense, dont include this. Unless you have a good reason to that I cant currently see!

You have not denied or admitting being the keeper or driver. If the driver was NOT identified then you MUST assert that you are the keeper and the claimant has NOT chosen to use POFA2012 to hold Keepers liable; this is a known fact.

Possible this has been covered previously but I wont go back 6 pages....

[Yogi_BB]

There is nothing to be gained by sending it early, apart from ensuring it gets there on time

Understood.

14 - I dont see how this helps - it is eithe rpublic land or it isnt. If it IS public highway then SAY SO and point out they CANNOT have a contract to manage there. It then renders all the "standing" bit moot. If it IS NOT maintainable at public expense, dont include this. Unless you have a good reason to that I cant currently see!

It's not exactly clearcut in that some of the roadway IS adopted by the local authority and despite this VCS have erected signs on that section and have been issuing PCNs to people stopping there. The latter half of the roadway IS NOT adopted but could be classed as open to the public and subject to national traffic laws such as requiring insurance etc. My point of including it was to show how VCS/BW Legal are already aware of the anomaly because of the Hedley case and to show that they have totally refused to comment on it in any of their correspondence.

You have not denied or admitting being the keeper or driver. If the driver was NOT identified then you MUST assert that you are the keeper and the claimant has NOT chosen to use POFA2012 to hold Keepers liable; this is a known fact.

I will amend to say that I was the keeper but due to reasons discussed with you off forum some time ago I don't want to play the driver aspect at this stage. I've amended my opening point

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the stopping of a XXXXX motor vehicle registration number XXXXX on the roadway of Gallagher Leisure Park, Scunthorpe that in turn resulted in the issue of a parking charge notice by the Claimant. This was on 01/12/2015 I was the keeper of the vehicle on that day.

Details of the Hedley case are HERE

This post has been edited by Yogi_BB: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 14:14

[nosferatu1001]

14 only matters if the vehicle was parked on land maintainable at public expense.
Otherwise you need to spin this on its head - state that VCS have placed signs on land that is outside of their authority, as it is maintained by the local council, and this makes it impossible to determine before stopping whether the road is public or otherwise - this confusion means a driver would not be looking for any "parking" signs other than those you would expect to see on a normal roadway. Or something like that.

Dont say "on that day" - just that you were and are the keeper at the material times.

POFA - if you are defending as Keeper, and stating the POFA limits your liability, you really need to point out that they havent used POFA to hold the keepe rliable, and this comes in at basically the first actual point of defnece.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 16:00

[Yogi_BB]

14 only matters if the vehicle was parked on land maintainable at public expense.
Otherwise you need to spin this on its head - state that VCS have placed signs on land that is outside of their authority, as it is maintained by the local council, and this makes it impossible to determine before stopping whether the road is public or otherwise - this confusion means a driver would not be looking for any "parking" signs other than those you would expect to see on a normal roadway. Or something like that.

Dont say "on that day" - just that you were and are the keeper at the material times.

POFA - if you are defending as Keeper, and stating the POFA limits your liability, you really need to point out that they havent used POFA to hold the keepe rliable, and this comes in at basically the first actual point of defnece.

Thanks for your advice Nosferatu, sorry I'm a bit late getting back to you been busy with something else. I've tweaked it a bit and also added a couple of other things that I found in other defences. Your comments please

I am XXX, defendant in this matter.

1. It is likely to be a matter of common ground that this claim arises as the result of an alleged infraction brought about by the stopping of a XXXX motor vehicle registration number XXXXXX on the roadway of Gallagher Leisure Park, Scunthorpe on XX/12/2015 that in turn resulted in the issue of a charge notice by the Claimant. I was the keeper of the vehicle at the material time.
2. The Claimant has chosen not to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protections of Freedom Act 2012.
3. I deny any liability in respect of the claim for the following reasons, any one of which will be fatal to the claimant’s case.
4. There is no contract. The signage forbids stopping, even for an instant, and therefore there is no consideration. There have been a number of similar cases, including UKPC v Masterson and PCMUK v Hall et al. This therefore is a case of trespass, and in such cases only the land owner can sue, and then only for actual damages incurred. Where there is no damage a nominal £1 is usually awarded.
5. Even if the signage did offer a contract, the font size is too small and the words too many, to be safely read from a moving vehicle. They can therefore only be read whilst stopped and the normal time allowed in these situations is 5-10 minutes in car parks to allow for a genuine meeting of minds and for the driver to understand and comprehend any potential contract. There can therefore be no contract entered into by consideration.
6. Even if a contract was entered into by consideration, the signage does not contain the information required by the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, enacted 13 June 2014. As per clause 13(1), without this information any contract is not binding on the consumer.
7. Even if the contract was binding, the charge is a penalty and an unfair consumer charge. Parking Eye v Beavis is the leading authority on this. Although Parking Eye won the case, the judgment makes it clear that if the charge is not to be a penalty/unfair consumer charge, the driver must have ample time to be able to read and digest the contractual terms so that they can fairly agree to the terms. As this has not happened the charge is not saved from being a penalty/unfair consumer charge, and unless VCS have incurred costs of £100, the charge is excessive.
8. Additionally, Parking Eye v Beavis ruled in the claimant’s favour as they could prove a commercial justification in ensuring the availability of free car parking spaces for customers of a retail park. It is suggested that the roadway in which the vehicle was stopped, shown in the images provided by the Claimant, was clearly disused, a no through road (although not signposted as such) and bordered in the main by scrubland. Therefore, the £100 parking charge is clearly unreasonable for the stopping of a vehicle, as neither the Claimant nor landowner would experience loss of business as a result of these actions.
9. On the date of the alleged contravention the sign that the Claimant relies on as forming a contract with a driver(they have supplied a photograph) was deficient:
i) I submit that the signs on site at the time of the alleged event were insufficient in terms of their numbers, distribution and wording to reasonably convey a contractual obligation and did not in any event at the time comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s (IPC) Accredited Operators Scheme a signatory to which the Claimant was at the relevant time. Schedule 1 of the IPC codes of practice (COP) in relation to parking, stipulates that it should be made clear that a motorist is entering onto private land. The sign has no such information displayed. The whole roadway in question, save for the absence of yellow lines, is indistinguishable from that which precedes it.
ii) The sign shows the claimant as being a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) trade body. It was in fact a member of the IPC, having left the BPA in 2014.
iii) The sign is poorly sited and makes mention of double yellow and red lines although none are present. The roadway before, which this is a continuation of, has double yellow lines. It is believed that this is an attempt to confuse anyone who had managed to read the sign into mistakenly stopping in the area and amounts to predatory tactics, a breach of its own trade body’s COP (Part B 14.1).
iv) Despite repeated requests both the Claimant and their legal representatives have refused to supply information as to the number and position of signage at the site on the date in question.
v) On a revisit to the site in late 2016 it was found that the Claimant had installed a number of repeater signs that were not in situ the year before which I believe reinforces my assertion that the signage was inadequate on the date in question.
vi) The Claimant’s operative took a total (over 39 seconds) of three photographs of the vehicle being stopped directly across from its own parked unmarked vehicle. In failing to identify themselves and point out the alleged contravention of conditions, they have acted in a predatory manner as well as failing to mitigate their alleged contravention.
vii) The Claimant’s legal representative has in correspondence tried to argue that a contract can be formed ‘by performance’, it is countered that given the lack of signage and its deficiencies this is impossible.

10. The proper claimant is the landowner. The Claimant has provided no proof to be an agent acting on behalf of the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to the Claimant.
11. Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.
12. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that they were at the time of the alleged event in possession of sufficient authority to issue parking charges and institute proceedings in their own name and can demonstrate a clear chain of authority from the landowner.
13. Despite numerous requests of the Claimant to supply a copy of their contract or authority (even a redacted one), they have thus far refused to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
14. It is believed that the claimant may say that they were authorised by a company called XXX Limited (Company number XXX) to issue tickets for this roadway. It is a matter of public record that this company’s ownership of the area in question ceased during its accounting period September 2014-2015 when it was sold and it in effect became a dormant company, finally being dissolved in October 2017.
15. The case of VCS v Hedley (Case number C8DP3H0H) on 20/02/2017 in the County Court at Kingston upon Hull is brought to the attention of the court. In this case which concerns the same location (Gallagher Leisure Park) a significant part of the roadway in question was found to be a highway maintainable at public expense and VCS had placed signs on land that was outside of their authority. This means that as well as points 9-13 which questions the Claimant’s right to issue charges on any private land at the location, VCS have placed signs on land that is outside of their authority that is maintained by the local council. This therefore makes it impossible to determine before stopping whether the road is public or otherwise. This confusion means a driver would not be looking for any "restriction" signs other than those one would expect to see on a normal roadway. As such the court found in favour of Mr Hedley. Despite pointing this out to the Claimant’s solicitors (BW Legal who also represented in the Hedley case) on several occasions, they have declined to comment.
16. The Claimant has sought to artificially inflate the claim by asking for interest (£XX) to be added. My stance from the outset, to contest this claim, was made apparent and the fact that the Claimant has taken almost three years to get to this stage is their responsibility. Therefore their claim for interest has no justification.
17. The Defendant again believes that the claim has been artificially inflated and that the claimant has added unrecoverable sums to the original charge, including £54 for Legal Representatives costs which is not permitted, regardless of the identity of the driver, for the small claims track under CPR 27.14. In any case the Defendant disputes the Claimant has incurred £54 Legal Representatives Costs pursuing an alleged £100 debt and puts them to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.
18. The Claimant’s legal representative has argued that ‘additional contractual costs’ ( £54) pursuant to ‘Terms and Conditions’ form part of the contract; as can be seen on the photograph of the main sign (as mentioned in point 8) no additional charges are mentioned therein.
19. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; as they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.
20. The Claim Form issued by BW Legal on the XX has not been correctly filed as it was not signed by a legal entity. It does not have a valid signature. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer. Its literally just computer printed BW Legal Services Limited (Claimants Legal Representative). There is no signature.
21. The Claimant is believed to be a serial litigant, with thousands of similar claims identified by HM Courts Service, this is clearly against the public interest. It is the Defendants belief that this claim is yet another of the Claimant’s template claims and will proceed with no specific evidence or facts with which to substantiate it. This demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers.
22. As an unrepresented litigant-in-person I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimant’s case.
23. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of his assertions. In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant has no case and the court is invited to consider striking the matter out.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence, are true.

Signed

[bearclaw]

Others may comment but 9 vi) is substantivly the same as the argument in VCS vs Ibbotson - also heard in Scunthorpe where Judge Mcilwane took VCS to task for their operative not telling Ibbotson that he would incur a charge by acting contrary to the signage. ie there is a duty placed on VCS to mitigate loss. It may be worth throwing that in especially as there is a transcript from the same court available.. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...t&id=16231)

This post has been edited by bearclaw: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 13:54

[nosferatu1001]

For 14 - you still need to show why this is relevant. yes the company is dormant (why blank out these details?) so that means they canont hold any contracts with anyone, let alone the claimant...

[Yogi_BB]

Others may comment but 9 vi) is substantivly the same as the argument in VCS vs Ibbotson - also heard in Scunthorpe where Judge Mcilwane took VCS to task for their operative not telling Ibbotson that he would incur a charge by acting contrary to the signage. ie there is a duty placed on VCS to mitigate loss. It may be worth throwing that in especially as there is a transcript from the same court available.. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=at...t&id=16231)

Thanks for the heads up on that, I've amended
vi) The Claimant’s operative took a total (over 39 seconds) of three photographs of the vehicle being stopped directly across from its own parked unmarked vehicle. In failing to identify themselves and point out the alleged contravention of conditions, they have acted in a predatory manner as well as failing to mitigate their alleged contravention. The Claimant should be aware of this having been criticised in the case VCS v Ibbotson (Ref: 1 SE09849) at Scunthorpe County Court in 2012 for failing in its duty to mitigate loss.

For 14 - you still need to show why this is relevant. yes the company is dormant (why blank out these details?) so that means they canont hold any contracts with anyone, let alone the claimant...

Amended slightly. Not sure why I blanked out the company name!

14. It is believed that the Claimant may say that they were authorised by a company called Ashflame Scunthorpe Limited (Company number 05489802) to issue tickets for this roadway. It is a matter of public record that this company’s ownership of the area in question ceased during its accounting period September 2014-2015 when it was sold and it in effect became a dormant company, finally being dissolved in October 2017. Therefore even if a contract had existed prior to this with VCS to manage this location, it did not apply on the date in question (01/12/2015) when Ashflame were no longer the owners.

This post has been edited by Yogi_BB: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 15:00

[nosferatu1001]

14. The claimant has no standing as their contract was with a company Dormant on the material date. [then give explanation]

Your defnece is a series of tuples of the form: Reason why the defendant is not liable: supporting info, if needed
So you put why you arent liable, and why this is so - like I have done above.

[Yogi_BB]

14. The claimant has no standing as their contract was with a company Dormant on the material date. [then give explanation]

Your defnece is a series of tuples of the form: Reason why the defendant is not liable: supporting info, if needed
So you put why you arent liable, and why this is so - like I have done above.

Thanks Nosferatu, had to look up 'tuple' but I'll remember it for my next game of Scrabble! How's this?

The claimant has no standing as their contract was with a company dormant on the material date. The Claimant has claimed that it was authorised by a company called Ashflame Scunthorpe Limited (Company number 05489802) to issue tickets for this roadway. It is a matter of public record that this company’s ownership of the area in question ceased during its accounting period September 2014-2015 when it was sold, becoming dormant and finally being dissolved in October 2017. Ashflame being a dormant company on the material date (01/12/2015) could not have held a valid contract with anyone, including the Claimant, for any matter, including use of the roadway in question. The defendant therefore cannot be liable.

Just wondering if it's worth adding something to the effect 'this is believed the reason why the Claimant has steadfastly refused, despite numerous requests, to release to the defendant proof that a valid contract exists'? Otherwise is there anything stopping this been sent over today to CCBC?