I was a bit miffed that there was no financial consideration towards us, did not even get the £4.00 parking fees we had to pay to go to the Court. I think in this case as there was only 30 minutes allowed the Judge just opted for the easiest route for her. The only pleasing part was the Pieman had to cough up the Court fees which I think would have been £35 application fee and the hearing fee £25.00. Plus the cost of the representative which although it was not made known assuming she was a Solicitor hopefully that would have cost maybe £150. to £200. The tragic part is that while he was losing that money he probably issued another ten PCNs At the Airport during the hearing. Now there is the issue of The Pieman accessing keeper details without proper authority from DVLA? Make of it what you will , but I find it curious that when asked for the information under cpr we were provided with a copy of the alleged contract which you may recall was between East Midlands Airport and Southend Airport , not between VCS and Southened Airport. Jester Jakes WS did not include a copy of any Contract. I had mentioned here fairly early on the contract disparity!

I have a feeling that it is not a criminal offence. As if you do not have planning permission the local council can issue an enforcment notice and if you do not comply or appeal against an enforcment notice then it becomes a criminal offence

Thank you. It was a good team effort. One thing I forget to to mention, although no example were given the judge said that it was long proven that lack of Planning permission for signs was not a defence.

Hello. It was the Court that had not received the VCS WS. I doubt that the VCS reresentative will want to act for them again , all she had was Jolly Jake"s WS and she had to give that to the Judge. I think even the Judge was feeling a bit sorry for her.

Hello We can chalk up another triumph over VCS. There was some confusion over whether having someone represent you is allowed, It is allowed. In supplying my WS to the Court I asked permision for my partner to represent me as Lay representative. On the day the Judge did ask VCS if that was ok with them, which they agreed to. The VSC representative approached us prior to the hearing saying that she was authorised to settle for £185, we said in our favour? She said no to that. The hearing was a bit odd. First the judge did not have the VCS WS, I thought the judge would end the case there and then. However the VCS representative gave the Judge her copy. The VCS representative did not have my WS. There was a discussion about adjourning the case, the judge asked the VCS representative if she was happy to continue, she said was. Judge asked VCS why they thought I should pay. Then asked me why I thought I should not. My partner went through as best as possibly could with POFA Airport By-laws, Planning permission lack of contract, signage illumination, location etc. I think that the judge said as only 30 minutes had been allowed she would not get too involved with digging too deep. In summing up the case was decided on the lack of evidence showing the signs created a contract, the signs were unlit (the stopping event took place at night) . The judge commented on the first entrance sign that it was under a tree and in the shadows and that the tree blocked out the street lamp. Lastly the photos supplied by VCS of the stopping event did not show any signs showing where the event took place. I asked for costs and for unreasonable and LIP costs. Judge said that she thought that VCS had a legitimate claim. I did not get any costs. the judge did not comment or judge on anything except the signs. From the VCS point of view it was a complete lashup. They did not provide their representative with anything like what was required. The judge was a bit nonplussed by the lack of VCS paperwork. For anyone in the same position, be forewarned I have ended up with almost a Kilo of paperwork. Was it worth it? Absolutely. Happy to have stumped the parasites. One can live in hopes that the new parking code will come into force sooner rather than later. Thank you all who contributed..

Hello. What is a Sep Sheet?? I work nights

Hello. At the start of this fiasco the snotty letter was duly sent, in which it was stated that an unreasonable costs order would be sought. Assuming a win, How is that done? can it be asked for at the Hearing ? or is it a seperate issue?

Updating. Last Court date was cancelled. Still awaiting new date from court.

Yes that was all, a contents page. I already put up the signage which just showed signs supposed to be at the airport. The artwork was not very arty as it was a plan showing the alleged areas that vcs preys on. T wo signs were claimed to be at the Airport but they were just pics of signs showing no context, the remainder nicely showed how they do not face a driver but the passenger door.

I thought the last one uploaded was the vcs ws contents page

Hello sorry about that, Thank you for once again sorting out my errant ways. This is why I hate doing things on computer, not being familiar with how everything works. I attach, hopefully correctly, the final, now sent WS. If there are glaring faults, problems, inaccuracies etc. I would rather not know at this stage as there is nothing I can do about them now and it would just add to the worry of the actual hearing. Let me know after the result! I was working on it until late at night to get it off in time, in the end I had enough of it. Thank you all for the help. If all of the Airport is not relevant land does that mean the VCS have been abusing the POFA for a long time and does that mean that anyone who has been connned by them could potentially ask for their money back? WS PDF.pdf

No list of paperwok provided in vcs WS. As they already sent a full copy as result of the CPR request, the Contract and some of it's contents were referred to and shown in the defence. There is absolutely no mention of the Contract in their WS. Apart from no stopping supposed contract. As parts of their Contract are included and referred to in the Defence, it is known that the Defendant has received the Contract. No point in denying it was not included as it is very much in favour of the Defence. Perhaps Something for future victims, Videoing opening the packet on receipt?? Despite two requests (proof in defence WS) for evidence of any planning permission none were provided. The system does seem to be a bit unfair, the accusers not showing their hand until late leaving not enough time for the victim to counter. But I guess that is what the hearing is for

Do you know, It never occurred to me that they did not include a contract with their WS, ....happy days ! Can't see how they thnk they can rely on Contract if they have not produced one, even if it does not include them. Can the Claimant or for that matter the Defendant admit further documents? I read somewhere about supplimentary admissions. From what I can gather only evidence that was not available when they made their WS can be further admitted.? If that is the case can't see they can introduce extra evidence.

There was no Contract included in their WS. The relevant parts (to the Defendant) of their Contract were included in the defence ws. There at at least eleven points in the defences favour. As far as I can tell, all they have is, we put up a few signs and there was an alleged breach of contract and we rely on two cases , neither of which were on airports, or cases involving no stopping, one was not represented by the respondent. Both cases were where the respondents admitted they were the drivers. and both were on contraventions on Business parks

in this case it was not feasable Posting was left to the last minute. even given a few more hours it would have been difficult to alter everything round to include extra arguements. If the law iaw applied properly the judge should not have to look past the first three lines of the supposed contract. I think the judge woud prefer to rely on Companies house rather vcs

Thank you for sorting out the photo mess and your answers. WS has been delivered to vcs already, In the WS they sent, there is a plan but it is not the one that is included in the Contract they sent as a result of the CPR request. Plan 1 is the one is one that came with their WS. Plan 2 is the one that is attached to the Supposed contract (Page 7 ) which was supplied as a resut of the CPR request . The two black and white signs in the images above, do not show them in situ, so I don't think they can rely on them anyway. otherwise they could just produce any old sign and claim it was in situ. The only pages that are not above in the vcs WS are Para 1&2 (Introduction) and the copies of the two Court Cases they are relying on.

As the WS says"my company was prominently displaying signs on the land" I think we can say that they erected the signs or caused them to be erected. Planning permission must be required for large signs. I am sure if we erected signs on our front drives or gardens the local Council would soon give us a visit. yes I hope by-laws rule.

Without planning pemission? I thought that was one of the arguments?

Thank you. I will be use the mising sign, and as you say, I can't see how they can argue that signs below and facing a passenger door are as they say "Prominently displayed". If I can get the "not relevant land" fact over to the judge, the illegal signs are not so important in the case. And if they did not want vehicles to stop at the pedestrian crossing they should have installed a pedestrian bridge. Would have saved all that trouble of sending out PCNs

Thank you I did try that but......... I did get one from google maps which looks the same one they sent.. I will have another go later or get my daughter to do it tomorrow! claimants ws Screenshot Google Maps.pdf Claimants WS.pdf

Thank you.The other page of WS the first page is all about jakes employment. I can't do the photos of signs says files are too big I think they must be getting hard up and running low on ink as they sent the last two in black. The amount of paperwork this has generated is unbelievable, it should be declared an environmental disaster. . VCS WS Page 2.pdf

The case regarding wheel clamping at para 21 "Although this case relates to wheel clamping it has long been held the the principle remains the same where in fact clamping is now substituted for a Parking charge Notice" I had not thought about omission of the by-laws as a tactic. Yes exhibits were included. The previous pages were just the stopping and breach of contract stuff. They included copies of the court cases referred to andphotos of the signage, with the exeption of the entrance one, all facing the side door of a vehicle and the repeater ones at the height of a vehicle door. .

Hello. I included the POFA and the by-laws thank you . Their WS arrived after I sent mine, although I don't think I could have managed to add anything further as a result of their WS (attached) as contained pages of court cases that I had little hope of understanding or using in a short time. They have included reference to four cases two of which seem to be appeals, one with a non attendant respondent, none of them are anything to do with Airport cases, which I find rather worrying. At it is an Airport case I was expecting that they would include the by-laws are arbitrary , but no, nothing as far as I can tell about by-laws??. Am I being ambushed here? VCS WS excerpt.pdf

Thank you for the above. I have now included the two Court cases re. abuse of process which seem to be cut and shut as far as the extra claim is concerned. I did not include the bye laws as I did not think it could be disputed . I was thinking there was enough to bore the judge to death already. Looking at the VCS ws I see they are will say that that bye laws are arbitary. The case is on 19th so as I see it, To be in line with submitting it no later than 14 days and to be sure it arrives in time I should post mine this Friday.

Hello. See attached revised statement. What happens if I do not receive the Parasites WS before I have to post mine (which will be this week? I have not included the bits after page 10 as I do not know that is what he/she will say Defendants WS V3.pdf