Hi dx100uk I don't want to mither but I only have 3 days left to respond, did you manage to knock anything up for me?

Hi dx100uk I don't want to mither but I only have 3 days left to respond, did you manage to knock anything up for me?

Were you not advised to “knock up” your own response up and then post here for advice?

Self-help means self-help...

Hi ericsbrother

the defence I intend to make is as follows:

1 There is no keeper liability as VCS have failed to follow POFA protocols to create one.

2 No contract was offered by their signage so there has been no breach to create a cause for action. The demand is thus a penalty with no attempt to create terms with the only possible effect being deterrence.

3 VCS do not own the land, it is owned by the airport and is covered by it's own airport byelaws.

Do I complete the income & expenditure forms? Any help/editing greatly appreciated.

Apologies disgruntled2007 I didn't realise I needed to refresh my screen for responses to appear.

Hello there. Well done for working out the refresh thing, I tell a lot of people about that.

I would say you don't need to fill in the I&E forms, who sent that? But please wait for the experts for a definitive answer.

HB

you totally ignore the pap stuff

just write a letter but you need to read what EB said above

esp about the no stopping PCN

you have to stop to be able to read any signs!!

Hi I found another thread very similar to my situation in which they were advised to send the following by the talented ericsbrother, would it be OK for me to send the same or is that not done?

Unfortunately for you I wasn’t born yesterday so I won’t be paying the demand to your client as both you and they know what I know and that there is no liability in this matter because the land is covered by its own byelaws, the signage is prohibitive and not an offer of a contract so none has been breached and anyway the POFA limits any charge to the specified sum so your demand for £160 is just a nonsense.

As VCS has been spanked at court on this very same thing several times before I suggest that you tell your client to discontinue this foolishness and that way you will at least obey the SRA rules of conduct and obey Civil Procedure as well. I know that may well be a first for you but call it your new year's resolution.

Should they decide to continue then I shall be asking for a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and then seek damages for breach of the DPA as per VCS v Philip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

Even Will and John, the parking worlds’ worst solicitors seem to have got fed up with Simple Simon's stupidity and greed and presumably that is why you are wasting your ink on his behalf.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated. Dee

Just my opinion, Dee, but Gladdys will probably know it's something you've copied and pasted from the interweb, which could lose you credibility. I wonder if it might be an idea to amend it before sending it.

HB

Thanks Honeybee for your reply, I've amended slightly and will send this evening by Registered Post to ensure it arrives tomorrow before 1pm. Thanks all for all your help, much appreciated.

Doesn't matter

It been used lots of times

Does the job it needs too perfectly

Its very specifically says certain things in certain ways and that is the important bit

Don't changevit!!

You don't need registered post

1st class with free proof of posting will do

Ignore their stupid time limits

They have zero legal meaning

Thanks dx100uk. Hopefully this will be the end of it but as Arnie nearly said 'I may be back'.

if you send this as written then they may see it is a copy of another letter.

GOOD, they will then realise that you are taking advice and that means they wont be able to rely on your ignorance to trick you into paying up when you dont have to.

It also means that should they continue a unreasonable behaviour costs order is much more likely

so not only will they lose a claim they will have to fork out around £300 for your day out rather than next to nothing.

I wish that they got 1000 identical letters,

that would be strength in numbers!

can you imagine a judge having to read it 1000 times in defended claims, how could VCS justify their actions then?

dont waste money on registered post either, just get a proof of posting receipt from the post office.

Letter sent! Fingers crossed! Thanks so much everyone for your help it's been invaluable. Thank God for this Forum.

OK.

There is no guarantee this will work but has done so in the past.

showing them you are up for it is what this is about.

They will usually go and bully some other poor sap when you look like a tough one to crack.

As far s I can remember, BWL (and Gladstones) either fail to turn up at court or discontinue defended claims. They hope that the threat of court action spurs some into paying rather than face a court or that they get a judgement in default.

I can't think of one case where the no stopping rule has been questioned in court. VCS know it's an unlawful term. BWL follow their masters blindly instead of advising them that their case is weak.

It's all about the money!

Hi All I've had a response to the letter I sent and have attached it here.

Any thoughts would be welcome but it looks like they are awaiting further instruction from VCS.

img026.pdf

oh and their English is terrible.

and they cant waive the byelaws in their favour either..

and they are not there to enforce security...what prats!!

BW its their not there!! IDIOTS

Oh, I do hope that they use these same arguments if they're daft enough to take this in to a court.

It'll be a bloodbath

I just saw this on the Parking Prankster's blog, about JLA. It's nearly three years old, but are the signs still the same, Deebrad? Interesting article too.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.fr/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html

HB

They would need a biased judge to slip this one through, "awaiting "there" instructions. terrible grammar, wrong spelling should be "their" Hanging's too good for them, B & W need locking in a room for a week with non stop Max Bygraves playing.

It would almost be excusable (almost!) if that was the only error.

The whole thing is ludicrous, they haven't a leg to stand on and know it but still they persist. That link on the Prankster's puts them bang to rights.

of course they are waiting for further instructions, they have been rumbled and now they know that you know they are a busted flush.

VCS may give them the go ahead or they may realise that you arent going to give in as soon as a claim form hits your doormat and they will be landed with a large bill for their stupidity.

Simon Renshaw Smith thinks the courts are biased against him anyway

but the rest of us think it is the law that is against his stupid claims

and wish that there was a change in law that could force serial litigants to produce proper evidence for their claim before it was accepted into the system.

A thousand default judgements wouldnt be good enough if only 20 defended ones were copiously spat out for example.

The new regulations were supposed to address this but as yet there is no evidence they have

because the punishment for a crap claim is a reduction of the amount awarded by 50% and the parking co's dont win defended claims so that cant be tested.

So, is there any point in telling BW to stop sending letters (because in responding to them, they are wasting my time)?

not your thread but NO NO and NO again