-
A lot of Judge's like double spacing so I added that.
Obviously make sure all formal details are set out in the header.
I will say;
1. That the claim is denied in its entirety and that absolutely no debt is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant.
2. That it is accepted by the Defendant that they were the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle on the material date - this is not disputed.
3. That the Defendant robustly disputes that they have admitted being the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
4. That as the vehicle keeper there is no legal requirement for me to reveal who was driving and I will not be doing so.
5. That in his Witness Statement (WS), Mr Jake Burgess (JB) makes numerous unsupported assertions that indicate that I was the vehicle driver at the material time.
6. That in his evidence JB provides Exhibit 7 which is my initial appeal enquiry to the parking operator - I accept that this was sent by myself.
7. That in that appeal enquiry it is clearly shown that my appeal was made by myself but purely as vehicle keeper - I would specifically draw the Court's attention to the sentence on the Exhibit 7 which states; "Note : Keeper was the selected choice."
8. That when making an appeal, the appellant is specifically asked to choose the legal basis on which the appeal is made - the choice being 'Driver' or 'Keeper' - in this instance it is clear that I chose to make the appeal as keeper.
9. That, not withstanding the previous point, the wording in my appeal enquiry is made in the third person - Whilst I made a number of enquiries of the operator, I did not at any point reveal who was driving at the material time - I simply question the signage and specify that I understood that payment had been made.
10. That in the second document of Exhibit 7 the operator appears to deliberately claim that I had admitted to being the driver - this appears to be an attempt to force liability onto a keeper who has made no such admission in an appeal enquiry which was specifically made as vehicle keeper - I believe that this point demonstrates the Claimants predatory and bulling nature when pursuing a private parking charge.
11. That, therefore, it appears very obvious that the Claimant is not able prove who was driving at the material time.
12. That the Claimant's Witness Statement is actually fishing for liability.
13. That, at point 21 in his WS, JB states that the Claimant also believes that I was the driver 'because otherwise I would nominated another driver' - this point is firmly rebutted on the basis that there is no legal requirement for a vehicle keeper to provide driver information to a private parking operator.
14. That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS Ltd v Edward if required - this case demonstrates that the Claimant is required to provide specific evidence to prove who was driving and that no assumption can be made as to who was driving - the same case also preserves the keepers right 'to say nothing' when a Claimant asks a keeper to identify a driver.
15. That, further to the previous point, the provision of driver details to the operator would, on the balance of probabilities, be the provision of the details of a family member / close friend / work colleague etc - why would a keeper provide those details when there was no legal requirement to do so?
16. That, based on the above, the claim made by JB in his WS regarding the identification of the driver is demonstrably false.
17. That, in the alternative, the Claimant appears to state that they will rely on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in order try and shift liability from an unknown driver to the vehicle keeper.
18. That liability under PoFA is robustly denied.
19. That in order to invoke keeper liability under PoFA, the Claimant must adhere to a particularly strict set of rules and regulations - these rules and regulations are set out in the legislation itself - most of these rules and regulations set out the requirements of information which MUST be contained on the parking operator issued Notice to Keeper (NtK) - this appears to be accepted by the Claimant.
20. That the Claimant states that their NtK is compliant with PoFA.
21. That this assertion is rebutted by the Defendant - the operator issued NtK is not complaint as it omits strictly required mandatory wording.
22. That the legislation demands that the NtK is TOTALLY compliant in order for keeper liability to be invoked and, therefore, the missing mandatory wording is immediately fatal to the Claimant's reliance on PoFA to transfer liability onto the keeper.
23. That, in particular, the parking operators NtK is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because it fails to provide all the information which is required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f).
24. That Paragraph 9(2)(f) 'warning to keeper' requires that the operator issue the keeper with a series of warnings which set out the conditions of the legislation.
25. That in this instance the wording presented by the parking operator does not warn the keeper that the operator can only rely on PoFA if the parking operator's NtK meets all the applicable conditions under the Schedule.
26. That Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that;
The Notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
27. That the sentence "if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met" is missing from the Claimants NtK - the legislation states that the NtK MUST contain this information if this NtK is to be relied upon by the Claimant.
28. That liability under PoFA is therefore denied.
29. That the Claimant now has no legal route by which they can hold me liable.
30. That I contend that the Claimant may already be aware of the PoFA issues with their NtKs and this therefore explains the Claimant's keenness to persuade the Court that I had admitted liability as the vehicle driver when no such liability was ever admitted.
31. That not withstanding all the above, I reasonably suggest that the Claimant's behaviour in this matter is clearly predatory in nature given the tightness of the car park timings as set out in the Claimant's evidence.
32. That the Claimant is clearly using some kind of 'time on site' calculation in order to prove the alleged overstay in a situation where the 'time of site' argument is particularly tight when all things are considered.
33. That 'time on site' does not actually demonstrate the true time that a vehicle was actually 'parked' especially in circumstances where the car park is busy.
34. That this claim would clearly fall under the de minimis principle - this additionally demonstrates the predatory nature of the Claimant.
35. That the Claimant's own car park timings show that this dispute is actually a dispute over just a few minutes.
36. That the Claimant's own evidence shows that the driver purchased 2 hours parking and that the paid parking expired at 14.36 on the day in question - the parking operator Code of Practice specifies that drivers should be given a minimum of 10 minutes grace period at the end of a parking session - with the additional 10 minutes minimum the expiry time becomes 14.46 - the Claimant's own evidence shows the driver leaving the site at 14.49 - therefore the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for what amounts to an extra 3 or 4 minutes on site.
37. The claim includes additional sums beyond the original parking charge. Such additional sums are commonly described as debt recovery costs.
38. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) the court held that such additional charges were not recoverable and amounted to an abuse of process.
39. That Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) reinforces the previous point since the legislation specifically states that the parking operator will (when discussing the parking charge), "have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid" - in this instance the Claimant is clearly trying to recover far more than the amount that remains unpaid.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
-
The 'first person' is generally regarded to be the correct way.
However, it is VERY important to remember that it is essential that the driver is never revealed and therefore the first person wording needs to be particularly precise when discussing certain points since writing in the first person could easily be regarded as an admission that you were at least present - the joys of the English language!
Bear in mind that the Judge will know that you are a litigant in person and, as such, the Judge accepts that your submission might not be perfect in that respect.
-
Ok, I'll remove the ANPR Time and Signage Contract formation sections as the former is already covered, and the latter a bit of a weak argument. However, isn't it valid to raise the question of whether they do have the proper authority to issue and enforce parking charges given they only produced a witness statement and not the actual contract? Also, how about the paragraph regarding the additional charges, it's my understanding they shouldn't be able to claim these additional expenses?
From the guidance provided by the court in the Notice of Allocation letter, they have requested the witness statement to be set out in numbered paragraphs, and which I had misread to be in first person, but actually it states here in the witness's own language.
I think i would prefer keeping it in first person though if that's suitable for a WS.
-
Not blowing my own trumpet here but I would have transcribed my defence points word for word in the WS.
I would recommend presenting them in the first person for a WS.
-
Not blowing my own trumpet here but I would have transcribed my defence points word for word in the WS.
The idea is to present evidence in a certain way and also to 'make hay' in terms of the behaviour of the claimant.
I am not saying that you should not add additional points but in this case those addition points are diluting the strength of the main defence points which are both potential winners in their own right.
There is an art to this which is hard to explain.
Make the WS too big and you risk i) pi$$ing the Judge off and, ii) looking like you are including frivolous defence points.
-
Thanks Intercity, could you have a quick review of this draft defense? VCS provided their witness statement a day before it was due (on the 26th of Feb):
Background
1. The claim is denied in its entirety and I deny that any debt is owed to the Claimant. It is accepted that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle on the material date. The Claimant has produced no evidence capable of establishing that I was the driver.
Driver Identity
2. The Claimant asserts within the witness statement of Mr Jake Burgess that I admitted to being the driver. This assertion is incorrect. The only document relied upon by the Claimant in support of this claim is the appeal enquiry contained within Exhibit 7 of their evidence bundle.
3. I accept that the appeal enquiry was submitted by me. However it was submitted strictly in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appeal system requires the appellant to select whether the appeal is being made as the driver or as the keeper and in this case the option “Keeper” was clearly selected.
4. The wording of the appeal itself refers to the driver in the third person and contains no admission as to the identity of the driver. At no stage have I admitted to being the driver.
5. Mr Burgess also suggests that I must have been the driver because I did not nominate another individual. This suggestion is legally incorrect. There is no statutory obligation requiring a vehicle keeper to identify the driver to a private parking operator.
6. I rely upon the persuasive authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward which confirmed that a parking operator must provide evidence of driver identity and cannot simply assume that the registered keeper was the driver.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
7. The Claimant alternatively seeks to rely upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“PoFA”) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. Liability under PoFA is denied.
8. In order to rely upon PoFA, a parking operator must comply strictly with the statutory requirements set out within Schedule 4. These requirements include the inclusion of specific mandatory wording within the Notice to Keeper.
9. The Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant fails to include all of the mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f). In particular the notice fails to include the wording that the creditor will have the right to recover the parking charge from the keeper “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met”.
10. As the statutory wording is incomplete the Notice to Keeper is not compliant with PoFA and the Claimant cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
Grace Period and Minimal Overstay
11. The Claimant’s own evidence demonstrates that the driver purchased two hours of parking and that the paid parking period expired at approximately 14:36.
12. The relevant parking industry Code of Practice requires that motorists be allowed a minimum grace period of ten minutes to leave a car park after the expiry of paid parking time. Applying that grace period the relevant expiry time becomes approximately 14:46.
13. The Claimant’s own evidence shows that the vehicle exited the site at approximately 14:49. The alleged breach therefore amounts to approximately three minutes beyond the minimum grace period.
14. The alleged breach is trivial and falls within the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex. Unlike the circumstances in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, this is a paid car park where the driver purchased a valid parking session. The alleged overstay amounts to only a few minutes beyond the applicable grace period. In these circumstances there is no evidence of any legitimate commercial justification for enforcing a Ł100 charge, particularly where the parking tariff had already been paid.
ANPR Time Versus Parking Time
15. The Claimant relies upon ANPR timestamps showing the time the vehicle entered and exited the site. These timestamps represent the time on site rather than the actual time the vehicle was parked.
16. Drivers entering a busy car park must locate a parking space, manoeuvre the vehicle and later return to the vehicle before exiting the site. The Claimant’s calculation therefore does not accurately represent the time the vehicle was parked.
Signage and Contract Formation
17. The Claimant relies upon signage at the site to assert that a binding contract was formed with the driver. However the signage exhibited within the Claimant’s bundle raises several issues.
18. The signage states that motorists should refer to “full Terms and Conditions signs located at the Pay and Display machines”. This means that the full contractual terms are not displayed at the entrance to the car park. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] confirmed that for a parking charge to be enforceable the terms must be clear and prominently displayed so that motorists have fair notice of them before parking.
19. The signage also states that “Any Driver/Registered Keeper remaining in this car park 10 minutes after entry agree in full to the Terms & Conditions”. This wording is problematic because a registered keeper cannot enter into a contract simply by the presence of a vehicle. Contract law requires that the driver, as the person capable of accepting contractual terms, must be the party entering into the contract.
20. The wording therefore attempts to impose contractual liability upon a registered keeper who has not entered into any contract with the operator. This type of wording has been criticised in multiple parking cases where operators have attempted to extend contractual liability beyond the driver.
Landowner Authority
21. The signage at the site clearly states that Excel Parking Services Ltd manage and control the car park. The Claimant in this case is Vehicle Control Services Ltd which is a separate legal entity.
22. The Claimant relies upon a document titled “Leaseholder Witness Statement” which asserts that Excel instructed Vehicle Control Services Ltd to manage parking at the site. However the underlying lease agreement has not been produced and the document amounts only to an unsupported assertion.
23. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue and enforce parking charges and to pursue this claim.
Additional Charges
24. The claim includes additional sums beyond the original parking charge. Such additional sums are commonly described as debt recovery costs.
25. In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (2020) the court held that such additional charges were not recoverable and amounted to an abuse of process.
Conclusion
26. The Claimant has failed to establish driver liability.
27. The Claimant has failed to establish keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
28. The alleged breach concerns a trivial overstay largely within recognised grace periods.
29. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it has proper authority from the landowner.
30. For all of these reasons I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.
-
Skeleton defence below.
Please quickly read up on how a defence should be presented - there's plenty of other threads which demonstrate this.
I'm uncertain why the Court have requested Witness Statements so early in the process when the hearing is almost 2 months away.
Anyhow, I think you'll be okay.
When did VCS provide their WS?
VCS Defence Points
And I will say;
That the claim is denied in its entirety and that absolutely no debt is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant.
That it is accepted by the Defendant that they were the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle on the material date - this is not disputed.
That the Defendant robustly disputes that they have admitted being the driver of the vehicle at the material time.
That as the vehicle keeper there is no legal requirement for me to reveal who was driving and I will not be doing so.
That in his Witness Statement (WS), Mr Jake Burgess (JB) makes numerous unsupported assertions that indicate that I was the vehicle driver at the material time.
That in his evidence JB provides Exhibit 7 which is my initial appeal enquiry to the parking operator - I accept that this was sent by myself.
That in that appeal enquiry it is clearly shown that my appeal was made by myself but purely as vehicle keeper - I would specifically draw the Court's attention to the sentence on the Exhibit 7 which states; "Note : Keeper was the selected choice."
That when making an appeal, the appellant is specifically asked to choose the legal basis on which the appeal is made - the choice being 'Driver' or 'Keeper' - in this instance it is clear that I chose to make the appeal as keeper.
That, not withstanding the previous point, the wording in my appeal enquiry is made in the third person - Whilst I made a number of enquiries of the operator, I did not at any point reveal who was driving at the material time - I simply question the signage and specify that I understood that payment had been made.
That in the second document of Exhibit 7 the operator appears to deliberately claim that I had admitted to being the driver - this appears to be an attempt to force liability onto a keeper who has made no such admission in an appeal enquiry which was specifically made as vehicle keeper - I believe that this point demonstrates the Claimants predatory and bulling nature when pursuing a private parking charge.
That, therefore, it appears very obvious that the Claimant is not able prove who was driving at the material time.
That the Claimant's Witness Statement is actually fishing for liability.
That, at point 21 in his WS, JB states that the Claimant also believes that I was the driver 'because otherwise I would nominated another driver' - this point is firmly rebutted on the basis that there is no legal requirement for a vehicle keeper to provide driver information to a private parking operator.
That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS Ltd v Edward if required - this case demonstrates that the Claimant is required to provide specific evidence to prove who was driving and that no assumption can be made as to who was driving - the same case also preserves the keepers right 'to say nothing' when a Claimant asks a keeper to identify a driver.
That, further to the previous point, the provision of driver details to the operator would, on the balance of probabilities, be the provision of the details of a family member / close friend / work colleague etc - why would a keeper provide those details when there was no legal requirement to do so?
That, based on the above, the claim made by JB in his WS regarding the identification of the driver is demonstrably false.
That, in the alternative, the Claimant appears to state that they will rely on Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in order try and shift liability from an unknown driver to the vehicle keeper.
That liability under PoFA is robustly denied.
That in order to invoke keeper liability under PoFA, the Claimant must adhere to a particularly strict set of rules and regulations - these rules and regulations are set out in the legislation itself - most of these rules and regulations set out the requirements of information which MUST be contained on the parking operator issued Notice to Keeper (NtK) - this appears to be accepted by the Claimant.
That the Claimant states that their NtK is compliant with PoFA.
That this assertion is rebutted by the Defendant - the operator issued NtK is not complaint as it omits strictly required mandatory wording.
That the legislation demands that the NtK is TOTALLY compliant in order for keeper liability to be invoked and, therefore, the missing mandatory wording is immediately fatal to the Claimant's reliance on PoFA to transfer liability onto the keeper.
That, in particular, the parking operators NtK is not compliant with the requirements of PoFA because it fails to provide all the information which is required by PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f).
That Paragraph 9(2)(f) 'warning to keeper' requires that the operator issue the keeper with a series of warnings which set out the conditions of the legislation.
That in this instance the wording presented by the parking operator does not warn the keeper that the operator can only rely on PoFA if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met.
That Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that;
The Notice MUST warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
That the sentence "if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met" is missing from the Claimants NtK - the legislation states that the NtK MUST contain this information if this NtK is to be relied upon by the Claimant.
That liability under PoFA is therefore denied.
That the Claimant now has no legal route by which they can hold me liable.
That I contend that the Claimant may already be aware of the PoFA issues with their NtKs and this therefore explains the Claimant's keenness to persuade the Court that I had admitted liability as the vehicle driver.
That not withstanding all the above, I reasonably suggest that the Claimant's behaviour in this matter is clearly predatory in nature given the tightness of the car park timings as set out in the Claimant's evidence.
That the Claimant is clearly using some kind of 'time on site' calculation in order to prove the alleged overstay in a situation where the 'time of site' argument is particularly tight when all things are considered.
That 'time on site' does not actually demonstrate the true time that a vehicle was actually 'parked' especially in circumstances where the car park is busy.
That this claim would clearly fall under the de minimis principle - this additionally demonstrates the predatory nature of the Claimant.
That the Claimant's own car park timings show that this dispute is actually a dispute over just a few minutes.
That the Claimant's own evidence shows that the driver purchased 2 hours parking and that the paid parking expired at 14.36 on the day in question - the parking operator Code of Practice specifies that drivers should be given a minimum of 10 minutes grace period at the end of a parking session - with the additional 10 minutes minimum the expiry time becomes 14.46 - the Claimant's own evidence shows the driver leaving the site at 14.49 - therefore the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant for what amounts to an extra 3 or 4 minutes on site.
-
If you can get something written over the weekend, send it to the relevant parties on Monday and essentially hope for the best. There's sometimes a fair amount of leeway given to litigants in person, so you might as well try.
They will probably pull out anyway.
Which solicitors (if any) are they using? VCS can be one of the more stubborn ones who do actually turn up for hearings and even routinely send their advocates to court with instructions to seek permission to appeal if they lose.
-
Can I ask when VCS submitted their Witness Statement?
-
Thanks all for all the help so far.
The deadline for paying the fee is 30th Mar 2026, the deadline for submitting: "to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 4pm on 27th February 2026".
Yes correct, I never admitted to being the driver.
And yes the witness is indeed Jake Burgess, I thought I'd better err on the side of caution before releasing someone else's personal details, even if they were acting in an official capacity.
-
Please contact the Court as a matter of urgency with regard to Witness Statement submission.
Check on MCOL to see if a submission is still possible?
Please answer the other questions above as quickly as possible.
Having checked the evidence PDF, I can see that the original NtK is not PoFA compliant as a section of mandatory wording required by Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2)(f) is missing from the VCS issued NtK.
I also note with interest that VCS wrongly state that you have admitted that you were the driver - I have read the appeal and I can see that you appealed as keeper and that the driver was never revealed.
In the VCS appeal response they wrongly state that you admitted to being the driver - this demonstrates how VCS behave.
Can we assume that the Witness for VCS is in fact the hapless Jake Burgess? No need to redact anything other than your personal details!
I can come up with some defence points.
They will probably pull out anyway.
-
When was the deadline for submitting?
When is the claimant's deadline for paying the fee?
-
The hearing has been scheduled for the 27th of April, with the fee to be paid by the claimnant. Unfortunately I've missed the deadline to submit witness statement. Will contact the court to see if it's still possible to submit it.
I'd like to address some of the points made in their witness statement, if appropriate to do so in my own witness statement. For reference I've linked their witness statement here: https://pdfhost.io/v/LQGdjELJ3m_Witness_Statement (https://pdfhost.io/v/LQGdjELJ3m_Witness_Statement)
In particular, I'm seeking guidance on how to respond to the following two claims:
I refer to the decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (“Wilshaw”) whereby it was found that it is not necessary for the Claimant
to prove the Landowner’s authority to constitute a valid cause of action to recover the Parking Charge,
what is required is proof that there is a binding contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the contract between the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.
My Company acknowledges the Defendant’s reference to another unrelated Claim that had been struck out due to the Particulars of Claim.
Respectfully, this is irrelevant, the Court has not determined the Particulars of Claim for this Claim to be insufficient when considering the case prior to allocation.
The Defendant seeking to rely on an unrelated matter is frivolous at best. The Charge remains due and the Defendant remains liable.
-
We don't generally conduct advice in private - part of the benefit of a forum is that you can see other people's cases and use them to help you with your own.
You can redact personal information before sharing your draft. When is the hearing, when is their deadline for paying the hearing fee, and when is your deadline for submitting Witness statements.
-
A date has now been set for the court hearing next month, and DCB Legal have filed a witness statement. So unfortunately it looks like they intend to pursue this in court :/
Is there anyone I could DM directly to share the witness statement, and discuss next steps? I'd rather not post the entire witness statement online to avoid leaking personal information.
Thanks
-
You are looking at a copy of the claimants, out of date form. As mentioned above, mediation is now mandatory.
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
Thanks for the details, I've now received the N180 form. Just a quick question, should I leave the mediation section blank?
No.
Mediation is now mandatory, but you will offer Ł0 to settle and your offer won’t be accepted. It’s a box-ticking exercise for the court system.
Search this forum for many examples and discussion.
-
Thanks for the details, I've now received the N180 form. Just a quick question, should I leave the mediation section blank?
-
Great, will do. Many thanks for the quick response!
You are not the OP...?
-
Great, will do. Many thanks for the quick response!
-
Yes. Here is the advice for your won N180 DQ:
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
-
Hey all,
I've received an email now from the solicitors stating that the client wishes to proceed with the claim, that the N180 has been filed with the court, but also that their client may be willing to settle the case.
Should I just ignore this correspondence, and wait for the court to issue the N180?
Thanks
-
The forms that accompany the claim are not necessary. Why would you want to provide detailed personal information that is not necessary for the conduct of the claim?
You don't use the MCOL to submit your defence because it is severely limited in the number of characters you can enter and it is not only not formatted, but it simply puts the defence as a single wall of unreadable text.
-
Many thanks for the defence and draft order links! I've submitted the defence and will keep you all updated on progress.
Out of interest, why are the forms supplied by HMCTS not the right ones to submit in this instance, and/or not use the online service to respond to the claim (moneyclaim.gov.uk)?
Thanks all for the help so far, much appreciated!
-
With an issue date of 25th April, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 3rd 14th May to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 28th May to submit your defence.
If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Otherwise, here is the defence and link to the draft order that goes with it. You only need to edit your name and the claim number. You sign the defence by typing your full name for the signature and date it. There is nothing to edit in the draft order.
When you're ready you combine both documents as a single PDF attachment and send as an attachment in an email to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself. The claim number must be in the email subject field and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence and draft order in the matter of Vehicle Control Services Ltd v [your full name] Claim no.: [claim number]."
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]
BETWEEN:
Vehicle Control Services Ltd
Claimant
- and -
[Defendant's Full Name]
Defendant
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order approved by a district judge at another court. The court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:
(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;
(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;
(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).
(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.
5. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4.
Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed:
Date:
Draft Order for the defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tcewefk7daozuje25chkl/Strikeout-order-v2.pdf?rlkey=wxnymo8mwcma2jj8xihjm7pdx&st=nbtf0cn6&dl=0)
-
I found the initial LOC, hadn't read it carefully , thought it was just another debt collector letter. The LOC is dated: 21 March 2025.
I don't see any mention of N1SDT though. I may have discarded it if it were sent in a different letter, but I doubt it.
I've linked the claim form from HMCTS and the initial LOC (front and back).
(https://i.imgur.com/bhDIlwB.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/AD7Wd9w.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7I9ZINU.jpeg)
-
As above... when did you receive the LoC? Why did you not keep us updated? What is the issue date of the claim?
You DO NOT complete any of the forms you have received!!!!!
The first thing you do is answer the question about the LoC and then you SHOW us the N1SDT part of the Claim Form. WE do not need to see anything else that came with the letter from HMCTS!
You only redact your personal data, the claim number and the MCOL password. You leave EVERYTHING else visible, especially all dates and times.
-
Show us what you have received.
You should have received at least a Letter of Claim before this.
-
Hi all,
I have received a letter of claim sent by HM Courts & Tribunals Service including a response pack containing two forms - N9A: Admission Form, and N9B defense form.
Presumably I'll need to fill in the N9B form, is there anything in particular to be aware of when filling in the form? If not, I'll just use the same defence as submitted to the IAS.
Thanks
-
If you used the wording I provided in your response to VCS's operator response pack, what more evidence does anyone need to prove that the IAS is a charade and unfit for purpose.
As above, the IAS decision is not binding on you. Ignore everything except a Letter of Claim (LoC) od an actual N1SDT Claim Form from the CNBC.
No one pays a penny to these scammers if they follow the advice.
-
What's the likely process now? Having read some other posts, it sounds like VCS will go through a debt recovery firm (which as per the suggestions on this form should be ignored) and then presumably it will be taken to court. Is my understanding correct?
That is essentially correct. After the barrage of debt collector letters, which you should ignore, you'll probably receive a "letter of claim" from solicitors representing VCS. When you get this, come back to this thread for help.
On a separate note, I received a warning for bumping a post. It's unclear to me what should be done instead when looking for a reply to an unanswered question.
Essentially, we ask that you are patient. This is a busy forum, and we offer free legal advice as volunteers. Sometimes, replies may well take a few days. As you can hopefully understand, if everyone bumped their thread when they hadn't received a response in 2/3 days, it would be almost impossible for us to keep up.
-
I've appealed as per the suggestions, and as expected IAS have dismissed the appeal giving the following justification:
I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them. The Appellant's contention that VCS has no legal standing is not accepted. The signage clearly states that VCS will be the creditor in the event of a PCN being issued.
What's the likely process now? Having read some other posts, it sounds like VCS will go through a debt recovery firm (which as per the suggestions on this form should be ignored) and then presumably it will be taken to court. Is my understanding correct?
On a separate note, I received a warning for bumping a post. It's unclear to me what should be done instead when looking for a reply to an unanswered question.
-
Did you simply send the appeal I suggested as your IAS appeal? If not, please show us what you sent to the IAS.
You must highlight the points that you raised where they have not been responded to or the response given is wrong. For example, point #8 in VCS's response:
8. Vehicle Control Services Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Excel Parking Services Ltd and operates as a group company. Furthermore, the signs clearly advise “By entering and remaining in this private car park you, the driver, are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd and you agree to pay a charge if you fail to comply with the Terms and Conditions”.
You would respond as follows:
The appellant notes with concern the vexatious and misleading behaviour exhibited by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS), a company whose reputation within the parking enforcement industry is well-documented. VCS’s practices often operate on the margins of legality, and their conduct in this case, particularly in Point 8 of their rebuttal, exemplifies this. By asserting that they can enforce a contract under the name of their sister company, Excel Parking Services Ltd—a completely separate legal entity with its own registration number at Companies House—VCS demonstrates a blatant disregard for the principles of contract law and due process.
This approach constitutes a flagrant abuse of process. VCS’s argument is not only legally untenable but also indicative of a broader pattern of vexatious enforcement. It is deeply troubling that a company should present such an argument, which appears either to misunderstand or, more likely to deliberately misrepresent basic legal principles regarding contract formation and the distinction between separate corporate entities.
The appellant also questions the impartiality and legitimacy of the Independent Appeals Service (IAS). The IAS’s well-documented appeal success rate, which reportedly stands at less than 5%, undermines any claims of "independence". The anonymity of IAS adjudicators and the lack of transparency regarding their qualifications or legal training further erode confidence in this process. This “kangaroo court” system serves to prioritise the interests of parking operators—its financial backers—over fair and impartial adjudication.
Despite these systemic flaws, the appellant maintains that this case is so clear-cut that even the IAS should recognise the fundamental legal error in VCS’s arguments. Should the IAS fail to do so, the appellant is prepared to contest this matter in the County Court, where the integrity of the legal process will ensure a fair hearing. The appellant is fully aware that IAS decisions are not binding and will not treat an adverse outcome as the final resolution of this dispute.
Also, in point 14 of VCS's response where they state:
14. A copy of our authority to manage parking on this site was supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the Adjudicator for their perusal. As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal, which may be accessed and circulated by the appellant.
You could respond with the following:
In Point 14 of their response, VCS asserts that their authority to manage parking on this site has been supplied as part of the IPC audit process and is available solely to the adjudicator for review. They claim this document is "commercially sensitive" and therefore not provided to the appellant. This stance is a blatant abuse of process and a direct affront to the principles of transparency and fairness.
The appellant maintains that VCS is not the named operator on the contract purportedly flowing from the landowner, and their refusal to evidence this contract is unacceptable. Contract law requires clarity and proof of authority, particularly when a party seeks to enforce terms against another. VCS’s claim that this document is “irrelevant” is not only absurd but also legally unsustainable. The existence and terms of such a contract are central to this dispute. Without it, VCS has no standing to enforce the Parking Charge Notice.
By insisting that the contract is only accessible to the adjudicator, VCS is effectively asking for blind trust while denying the appellant a fair opportunity to challenge their claim. This is not just unfair; it is procedurally improper. Any adjudicator with even a basic understanding of legal principles would recognise that this approach would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. Such secrecy would be entirely unacceptable in a legitimate legal process, where both parties are entitled to see and challenge all evidence presented.
Should the IAS accept VCS’s argument on this point, it will only further confirm what many already know: the IAS is not truly independent but operates as a mechanism to protect the interests of parking operators. The appellant is fully aware that the IAS decision is not binding and will not treat it as the final resolution of this matter. Instead, the appellant invites VCS to escalate this to the only truly independent dispute resolution service—the County Court—where a qualified judge will undoubtedly scrutinise and understand the significant contractual and legal failings in VCS’s position.
So, now that you understand how to respond, you can refer to any other posts where VCS have either not responded/rebutted your points or they are making points that are not based on law or their CoP.
-
I've appealed to the IAS using the template provided earlier, and I've attached VCS's correspondence. I've until 8th of Jan to add anything further before it's passed to the adjudicator. Is there anything else to add or anything worthwhile to highlight given their response?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If there’s a sign at the car park that shows the creditor to be Excel, then they have breached the CRA and the CoP. That would be enough to get it thrown out in court.
However, these scammers rely on your gullibility in believing that litigation is a bad thing and out of ignorance you would capitulate and pay them before it ever got to court. Exactly what they want.
As for IAS, it’s a joke. Try if you want. When they reject, don’t imagine tht you have no other options but to pay. The only truly independent dispute resolution service is the smal claims track of the county court.
-
Sorry not trying to be difficult, but I'd just like to understand why they would receive a spanking if it got to court, so I could be a whole lot more comfortable letting it reach to that stage.
If the defence is incorrect legal entity, then wouldn't they just be able to point out that the sign states the contract is indeed with VCS, which is the correct legal entity?
-
The IAS is a waste of time but if you insist, just repeat the appeal suggested.
The most likely outcome of this will be a court claim where they hope you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will simply pay up out of ignorance once litigation starts. However, in reality, they would never let this get in front of a judge as they’d receive a spanking.
Eventually, as long as you follow the advice here, they would discontinue.
-
Hey all,
Any suggestions on what I should do at this stage? I've two days left to lodge an appeal to the IAS.
-
It's pretty much as per the PCN.
A ticket was bought for two hours, which expired at 14:35. So the tickets would have been bought at 12:35. The cameras have the car entering the car park at 12:32 and exiting at 14:49, which exceeded the duration by 14 minutes, and is the reason for the PCN.
-
OP, take us through the process pl.
The driver bought parking rights at what time??
Drivers have up to 10 minutes to purchase parking rights.
Ł100 parking charge payable if time of parking rights exceeded.
Your first post is misleading in the context of the signs. This is NOT an entry/exit equation as suggested by the NTK, it's a time exited-grace period-time parking rights bought v parking rights period equation.
-
That main terms and conditions sign is bizarre. It bears Excel's logo, then says that VCS are the creditor and the entity with whom contracts are formed, but then says that Excel will have the right to take legal action!
-
It doesn't matter as long as there is at least one sign in the car park that shows Excel. However, by fretting over the "mugs discount" you have messed up the initial appeal. You should not have appealed simply because you are thinking about paying the Mugs Discount. You either want to fight it or you don't.
-
Apologies, I had to quickly respond to the PCN as I was reaching the "discount" time limit in which to lodge the appeal.
Thanks for the suggested appeal, but on the sign it does say though that the contract is with VCS. Just so I'm clear are you essentially suggesting that the contract with VCS is void because the car park is managed by Excel?
-
Apologies, it wouldn't let me create an account on imgur
You don't need to create an account with Imgur in order to upload pictures there
-
Some of the signs just show Excel, and others showing both Excel and VCS. The main sign next to the parking meter does say the contract is with VCS.
Also, the initial appeal I made was rejected on the basis there is sufficient signage, making it clear that a Ł100 charge will be levied if parked outside the Terms and Conditions displayed, and that I exited the car park after the ticket expired.
Do I have any basis on which to appeal this?
So you've already appealed this. You didn't say and I've just wasted my time composing one for you. It's too late to do anything except you can try your luck with the kangaroo court that is the IAS. I suspect that the only way this is gong to be resolved is in the county court.
If those are your own photos, make sure you keep the Metadata for them and, if you can, get them date and time stamped. If not, get your own photos of any signs at the car park that have the Excel logo on them.
In the context of private parking enforcement, the entity named on the signage at a parking location is typically considered the contracting party. If the signage displays "Excel Parking Services Ltd." but the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is issued by "Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS)," this discrepancy is significant. Despite both companies being sister entities with common directors, they are separate legal entities with distinct company registration numbers.
A contract is formed between the driver and the entity named on the signage. Therefore, if Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the company identified on the signs, any contractual agreement would be with them, not VCS. This means VCS lack the legal standing to enforce the parking charge, as they are not a party to the contract formed by the signage.
VCS/Excel have lost several claims because of this discrepancy.
If you receive an NtK from a company different from the one named on the signage, you should appeal the charge by highlighting this inconsistency. In your appeal, state that the contract was with the company named on the signage (Excel Parking Services Ltd.), and therefore, VCS has no legal authority to enforce the charge. Make sure you have the photos of the signs to support your appeal.
Here is a suggested appeal:
Parking Charge Notice Reference: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Vehicle Registration]
This is a formal Registered Keeper appeal of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS). I do not believe this charge is valid, and I request its immediate cancellation on the following grounds:
1. Incorrect Legal Entity on Signage
The signage at the location in question clearly identifies the operator as Excel Parking Services Ltd., not Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (VCS). It is well-established that Excel Parking Services Ltd. and Vehicle Control Services Ltd. are separate legal entities with distinct company registration numbers, despite having the same directors.
As a result, the contract entered into at the time of parking was with Excel Parking Services Ltd., the entity named on the signage. VCS, as a separate legal entity, has no standing to enforce any alleged contractual terms or to issue this PCN.
2. Failure to Establish Legal Standing
In order for VCS to pursue this charge, you must demonstrate legal standing to do so. Since Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the company named on the signage and therefore the party to any potential contract, VCS has no contractual or legal authority to act in this matter. I request that you provide evidence of your authority to issue this PCN and to enforce any charges in relation to parking at this location.
3. Request for Evidence
If you believe that VCS is entitled to enforce this charge, please provide the following evidence:
1. A copy of the contract between VCS and the landowner granting you authority to operate and enforce parking at this site.
2. Evidence of your compliance with the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (SCoP) in relation to signage and correspondence.
3. A detailed explanation of how VCS has the legal right to pursue charges at a location where Excel Parking Services Ltd. is the named entity.
4. Photographic Evidence
Should VCS not cancel this PCN, I have photographs of the signage at the location, which clearly display the name Excel Parking Services Ltd. and will not hesitate to evidence them in any subsequent litigation should VCS be so inclined to persist in this futile exercise.
Given the above, I suggest the immediate cancellation of this PCN. Additionally, pursuing this charge without demonstrating the legal standing to do so constitutes a breach of consumer protection laws.
If you reject this appeal, please provide a detailed response addressing each of the points raised, along with the necessary evidence to support your position. Failure to do so will result in further action, including a formal complaint to the IPC.
Please consider this a formal request for your response within the timeframe specified by the BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice.
-
Some of the signs just show Excel, and others showing both Excel and VCS. The main sign next to the parking meter does say the contract is with VCS.
Also, the initial appeal I made was rejected on the basis there is sufficient signage, making it clear that a Ł100 charge will be levied if parked outside the Terms and Conditions displayed, and that I exited the car park after the ticket expired.
Do I have any basis on which to appeal this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You need to check the signs at the car park. The PCN is from VCS. The signs in the GSV, show it is run by Excel. However, the GSV images are over 7 years old.
Please let us know which company is showing on the signs now. Take a photo.
-
Hi,
The driver purchased 2 hour parking, but unintentionally exceeded the stay at the car park by 17 minutes.
Is there anything that can be done to cancel the PCN, seems a bit harsh to issue a penalty charge just for exceeding it by 17 min.
Apologies, it wouldn't let me create an account on imgur, so have uploaded the PCN on the site. Here is the link to the street view, which admittedly looks to be rather old, and not entirely sure if that sign next to the machine is still there:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4921276,0.0622832,3a,75y,209.59h,87.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxg4D7xEtIVjbuNy9WLOp-A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.6234244695773867%26panoid%3Dxg4D7xEtIVjbuNy9WLOp-A%26yaw%3D209.58785472103938!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTExMy4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Thanks,
Maikol
[attachment deleted by admin]