Jump to content


Site Team
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


FTMDave last won the day on October 11

FTMDave had the most liked content!


814 Excellent


Recent Profile Visitors

5,730 profile views
  1. Maybe the posts are numbered differently on different devices, I haven't got the foggiest. Anyway, it's just easier if I upload the WS here. Draft WS4 redacted and compressed(1).pdf
  2. Post 123 does have an attachment, "Draft WS4 redacted and compressed(1)". The section is called "Double Recovery" which is the, er, technical term for Unicorn Food Tax Points 43 to 53. You can use this whole section as it deals with the fictitious amounts that VCS add to all their claims, be it car parks, airport approach roads, etc.
  3. You don't need to do a supplementary WS. As written above, what Ambreen has sent is utter tripe and does nothing to help VCS, in fact it hinders their case. So good! I'm bemused however as to how you couldn't find their August letter. This is on top of the Excel PCN going missing, which if kept would probably have avoided the whole court case. You're in a serious legal dispute and this disappearance of correspondence needs to stop.
  4. Go to https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430570-vcs-2vanishing-windscreen-pcns-now-claimform-brook-retail-car-park-ruislip/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-5130039 Look at post 123. Open the attachment. Copy points 43 to 53. Apologies, I got the numbers wrong late last night through posting when knackered. Leave "Double Recovery" but cut out the other headings. Change the dates of the letters and the exhibit numbers in 43 & 44. You now have a section on the Unicorn Food Tax, as what happened to EL21 is exactly what happened to you. Conclude your WS with the two paragraphs I drafted in post 133. Yes, of course it's worth including a section on how VCS ballsed up POFA so the keeper isn't liable, if applicable.
  5. Exactly dx. That's what I meant by "sordid past", Will & John of Gladstones set up the IPC because the BPA's appeals body were cancelling too many tickets. The same people who ran Gladstones also ran the IPC and its appeals body the IAS! No conflict of interest there! Worth methinks in future a quick paragraph in WSs reminding judges of this.
  6. That's much better, well done. A few points - a) Obviously you need to number the paragraphs. b) After your "Conclusions" section I think you should insert a section on the Unicorn Food Tax. Have a look at the WS in post 123 of EL21's thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430570-vcs-2vanishing-windscreen-pcns-now-claimform-brook-retail-car-park-ruislip/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-5130039 You can use nigh-on verbatim points 45-53 of EL21's WS. Just cut out the sub-headings and change the dates of the letters. Look at the way that EL21 has superbly turned the tables on Simon by asking why VCS are claiming legal costs when they are representing themselves and embarrassing them by showing the letter where they lie about asking the court for the extra £220 when they know this is impossible. c) As you've quite rightly stuck the boot into VCS at the end, I would finish thus - Mohammed Wali is being somewhat disingenuous when he says he "may" be unable to attend the hearing. I have researched scores of VCS court cases and I cannot find even one where Mr Wali has ever appeared in court. The same goes for Ms Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS to write witness statements. This is particularly remarkable as hearings are by telephone or on-line during the COVID pandemic, with no travelling involved. It seems that under no circumstances are VCS willing to have their witness statement authors questioned in court. I invite the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.
  7. I think in the future we should stick the boot into all this "The IPC says what we are doing is fine" nonsense, with a quick description of the IPC's sordid past, then pointing out that it is unimportant what the IPC says is allowed, what counts is what the law in England & Wales says is allowed.
  8. I've been trying to get into the head of these disgusting companies - an unpleasant task I know .-- and try to understand why they think you owe them money. I think it comes down to this. You purchased two hours' parking at £3.50. The session ran out so you purchased a further two hours at £3.50, but stayed for two hours & 21 minutes. An overstay. That's despite the fact that an initial £7 payment would have allowed a six-hour stay. However, the fleecers have not split your stay up into two sessions, they've scored the own goal of referring to your stay at four hours & 21 minutes, which you amply paid for. Their PCN is also garbage and doesn't say exactly what you have supposed to have done. BTW, the Liverpool Echo journalist says CCP are really Parking Eye. I did realise their rubbish PCN is in the same style as PE ones.
  9. We normally recommend sending the WS exactly on the deadline, to stop VCS making up lies to counter it. That said, no harm done, because I can't believe this tripe from Ambreen. I really mean it, I'm not being sarcastic. She's supposed to have legal qualifications. I could easily have written something better myself, and I'm no lawyer. I'm genuinely bemused about what she's written. IMO her nonsense actually helps you and harms VCS (so good!) She has now had two chances to challenge your argument about Supremacy of Contract and has not done so. Presumably she recognises you're right on this point. Make sure you underline all this to the judge (if VCS are actually daft enough to push it all the way to court). Your weakest argument is that the PCN was from Excel. But it's now been strengthened as Ambreen has not even challenged this point. Again, in court you can say that VCS had the chance to deny what you have stated and have not done so. She witters on about terms not being unfair in a completely different case which did not involve permits. VCS have had three chances - the signs, WS1 & WS 2 - to explain how you could magically have obtained a permit, yet have not done so.
  10. I've found this. Interesting. Woman fined £100 after paying full price for parking during hospital visit - Liverpool Echo WWW.LIVERPOOLECHO.CO.UK Louise Fisher took on parking firm after meter charged her wrong tariff
  11. Of course POPLA did, it was set up by the parking companies. What is important is the law in England & Wales. This forum is full of threads where the PPC "won" with POPLA or the IAS, but when the case got in front of a judge the judge sided with the motorist.
  12. Yes, point taken about you making two payments. No way would you have mistyped the registration number twice. I'm just trying to work out how the idiots can decide you haven't paid when, er, you have - twice. It may be that the imbeciles can't deal with two payments and issue their rubbish on the basis that one payment didn't cover the full time you were there. Who knows. Yes, please get pictures tomorrow, good work.
  13. In any case let's be optimistic for a minute and say "prove I'm the driver" is a good defence point. The problem is that if the judge doesn't agree you immediately lose the case. "Prove I'm the driver" needs to be one of several points. 1. Locus standi. NCP are not the landowner. You do not believe they have the right to bring this claim. You requested to see a contract with the landowner giving them such a right by way of a CPR request and their solicitors refused to do so. Exhibit BW Legal's letter. 2. Suing the wrong person. Your "prove I'm the driver" point. (Obviously this will have to go if you admitted being the driver to NCP). 3. Insufficient signage. Tiny print. What LFI wrote in post 29. 4. Planning permission. You do not believe their signs have planning permission which is a criminal offence. You requested to see such permission from their solicitors but the solicitors refused to do so. (Have a look at the WS in post 123 of EL21's thread https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430570-vcs-2vanishing-windscreen-pcns-now-claimform-brook-retail-car-park-ruislip/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-5130039 You can adapt point 41 of this WS). 5. De minimis. The incident happened four years so you are unsure what happened. It's possible you paid but you input your registration number wrongly. You put NCP to strict proof you didn't pay. Paying but getting a single digit of the registration number wrong is de minimis. 6. Unreasonable conditions. In any case NCP deliberately make it difficult to pay so they can issue PCNs. No cash. Card payment which often doesn't work and they do nothing to fix. 7. Unicorn Food Tax. (You can use nigh-on verbatim points 45-53 of EL21's WS). As dx says, you're a Litigant in Person so you don't have to write in legalese. When you have time, post up a first draft and we'll take it from there. And please answer about how NCP suddenly started to write to you personally.
  • Create New...