Yep all done thank you, we'll see what happens. R

Hi All, My case was postponed until the 18th so I was waiting for a judgement, it's not going to be heard in person, only on the papers. I've just received a letter from the courts stating, "I am not satisfied reading the Defendants 2 letters undated but received by the court on 13 may 2020 that they have sent to the claimant copies of their statements. They are direted to send evidence that they have done so or to confirm that they have not." Now I sent one bundle to both the courts and VCS on the 12th May, in person with hard copies. Then I updated my bundle slightly with the new (gladly received info!) above and just emailed in the copies to the courts and VCS when I found out I didn't have to print everything out. I have a physical receipt from VCS for the 12th May bundle, and only have my email as evidence for the bundle I sent 13th May. I think I'm going to attach these with a covering letter and send them in, is it the same email address? [email protected] Thanks all, Stay safe! R

Thanks - I've not submitted this supplementary WS yet. Can I just confirm this point please? £100 cost is a consideration for breach of contract, according to their para 45. Then their para 53 says "terms of license having been broken by the Driver at that point becomes a trespasser and so liable to the Charge." If I become a tresspasser, shouldn't it be a fine that I'm paying ,not a consideration due for breach of contract terms? Are they conflating two independent reasons to charge me and calling it a single charge?? On Trespassing, something like: Paras 45 and 53 Consideration or Fine for trespass In para 45, the £100 cost is claimed to be consideration for a breach of contract. In para 53, it is claimed the Driver is liable to the charge because they are a trespasser. VCS cannot issue proceedings for tresspass as they are not the land owner.

Thanks for the tips Have added three new points: On further examination of the IPC Code of Conduct, clause 23.1 states that “If an Operator is issuing Parking Charges on land which is not owned by them, they must have written permission from the Landowner to operate on the Private Land”. VCS is clearly in breach of this Code of Conduct, which it relies on to legitimise many points. Also the fact that the Claimant has claimed to have fully complied with this code of conduct where it has been proved that they have not, calls into question the reliability and consistency of the rest of their Witness statement. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has planning permission granted by Sheffield council to display signs as required by The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 Part 1 Para 4 : “No advertisement may be displayed unless consent for its display has been granted— (a)by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on an application in that behalf (referred to in these Regulations as “express consent”); “ If no proof can be offered that permission was given by the council to display the signs in this car park, then they are illegally displayed, and no contract could be formed based on them. When such permission is granted, this is often subject to a free parking period being offered. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that they received written permission to change the parking period from 2 hours to 1 hour by Sheffield Council.

Hi - thanks for the info - I still don't quite get whether the costs are for breach of contract, or damages for tresspass. It's not clear at all. I've already submitted WS and evidence in a bundle, can I add supplementary statements? I've been told I can email the courts and claimant. I don't know if the MP sent my letter to them, he just sent them a letter mentioning that I had a PCN from them and had complained. Can you point out where in the Town And Country Regs 2007 3 hours min stay is stipulated please? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7678/321506.pdf I can't find it here

Afraid not

No Problem, their WS actually is really badly formatted, Their paragraphs are not continuous, and there's two paragraph 50s! (p13 and p17) I think it's a junior paralegal trying their best to mix the cookie cutter WS with specific defences against mine.

Hi, When I click on the inbox I get: "Something is wrong" and error Error code: EX1054

Ok - uploaded here. Thanks for your continued help! I've been sent a message by Legggy, I hope with the case number of the dismissed case earlier this year! But the messaging system doesn't seem to be working? output.pdf

Their para 58 is a little demeaning, and this paralegal's just moved some of the judge's words around to patronise me! Here's my response, is this correct? Para 58 Right to claim damages The Claimant cites [VCS v HMRC 2013] in order to confirm their right to grant license to park, and further, to then claim damages as a result of breach of contract. Although this case grants VCS the power to enter into a contract, it does not “of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did. ”[para 23]. One of the facts of this case says “VCS's clients ("clients") are owners or lawful occupiers of car parks or land. VCS enters into a contract on standard terms and conditions with each of the clients under which VCS agrees to provide the client with "parking control services"”[para 2]. Since nothing has been provided to show that VCS has a contract with the landowner or lawful occupier of this car park, as the facts of this case were judged upon, then it cannot be relied on to prove a formation of contract, or that damages are lawfully due. VCS v HMRC 2013 The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the land. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did. VCS_Contract_Defense.pdf

Isn't a court claim covered by the stipulation of 3.5 "which may extend to debt recovery and/or court action"? And I've also spotted 3.10 which says they can assign these rights to any third party. My point is not correct And I've got no evidence of the planning permission stipulation of 2 hours free parking, tried to get it but no luck! I don't even have the claim number that was struck out that day in Jan.

Yeah I'm reading anniebattle's thread - it's a long one! They've said they're now claiming the damages from me as the driver. As I sent a letter to my MP, in which I apparently claimed I was the driver. So I guess I can't rely on POFA against the £60 extra sum. I was also going to defend the fact that the contract is between a land management agency and not landowner. The attached documents are their claim to the contrary. PDF of landowner contract attached, PDF of claimant's defence of landowner contract also attached. Landowner_defence is all the paras claiming they have right to claim even though there's no chain of authority from landowner to them, is this defendable? Landowner_defence_2 pdf is their claim they are sister companies. They're not - VCS is a subsidiary of Excel as of April 2018 It's worth noting these two points: Contract is between EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD and xxx CONTRACT CLAUSE 3.5 states that "The Company [EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED] has the absolute right to demand and collect in its own name, the Parking Charges" So my WS pertaining to these points is Para 46 Contract Party The Claimant claims that “Vehicle Control Services Ltd” and “Excel Parking Ltd” are sister companies. Whether or not this is true is immaterial, the landowner contract provided by the Claimant states it is between EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED and THRE (UK) PROPERTY FUND. In this contract, paragraph 3.5 states that “The Company [EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED] has the absolute right to demand and collect in its own name, the Parking Charges”. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD is a separate legal entity and has no right to “demand and collect” parking charges as a result of this contract. docs2.pdf

Yeah that clears it up somewhat thanks! My WS is below if anyone's interested and can possibly give any comment please! Defence is also attached I haven't mentioned abuse of process with the double recovery attempt. Mention that too? Also the evidence bundle from VCS was sent to my service address, due to a complicated situation I had it sent to me 5 days ago, but bc royal mail have slowed down I've not received it yet and I'm due to drive back to my service address tomorrow to start working again on monday! As a result I probably won't be able to see what's in that bundle before I submit my WS. Is there anything I can do? Go in to the courts or VCS's office on Monday and request another bundle? I work right next to their office! I am xxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter and keeper of the vehicle of registration [REG NO], I will say as follows: The car park in this matter, the BERKELEY CENTRE CAR PARK (“the car park”) in Sheffield, has historically provided 2 hours free parking. Some time before the supposed contravention date of 25/07/2019 this 2 hours free parking was reduced to 1 hour free parking. A fact that is not reflected on the signs at the entrance to the car park, as shown in [CD REFERENCE]. The sign only mentions a “pay car park” and “maximum 2 hours stay”, which to an unscrupulous driver would not imply any change in car parking rules from before. The driver stayed, according to ANPR, in the car park for 102 minutes [CD REFERENCE (gdpr p15)] As the keeper, I then received a number of harassing letters [CD REFERENCE gdpr pgs 11-17] which claimed I’d contravened the car parking rules. I believed these letters originally to be incorrectly sent, knowing the car park in question offered 2 hours free, and seeing that the duration of stay of 102 minutes was below this limit. I don’t believe that the new signs make it sufficiently clear that there has been any change in car parking rules. Please see the old entrance sign here [CD REFERENCE], and the new entrance sign here [CD REFERENCE]. There is no substantial difference in the information offered on these that would imply any changes to the rules. The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in the signs within and around the car park [CD REFERENCE]. The logo and legal address for “Excel Parking Services Ltd” is prominently displayed. Therefore, any contract that would be entered into must be with “Excel Parking Services Ltd” and not “Vehicle Control Services Ltd” Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims. Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant. As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant. It is denied that the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant Statement of truth I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Signed Date defence.pdf

Sure - I received the classic LBA from Vehicle Control Services Ltd around sept last year for staying in the Berkeley Centre Car Park, Sheffield. Staying for 102 minutes, falsely believing the max stay to be 2 hours, as it used to be. I'm defending as the keeper of the vehicle under POFA My defence is a combination of T+Cs don't specify a PCN will be issued for failure to purchase a ticket Signs leading to and within show Excel Parking Services Ltd logo and legal address, claim has been brought by Vehicle Control Services Ltd, therefore VCS is stranger to contract Claimant put to proof that it has proprietary interest in the land Change in max time allowed without making it clear on signs is "predatory behaviour" against IPC CoP Long defence on arbitrary fixed sum of £60 added is double recovery and abuse of process Can I just ask a dumb question? What's the difference between my defence and WS? Can I add new arguments to WS referring to new evidence? I was hoping to add the new evidence that the contract between landowner and VCS stipulates two hours. Many thanks, R

Hi, Thanks for the heads up. Posted a thread here

Hi All, I've got a WS and evidence bundle to put in by wednesday. My main thread is here: forums dot moneysavingexpert dot com /discussion/6082400/claim-form-from-vcs So I've just got a quick question. re this thread: I was wondering if @Legggy or someone might be able to DM me with the claim number that was dismissed on the grounds of the contract being 2 hours please? I assume no-one has a copy of the actual parts of the contract that stipulate 2 hours. As the one linked above does not. Thanks, R

Hi All, I've got a WS and evidence bundle to put in by wednesday. I was wondering if @Legggy or someone might be able to DM me with the claim number that was dismissed on the grounds of the contract being 2 hours please? I assume no-one has a copy of the actual parts of the contract that stipulate 2 hours. As the one linked above does not. Thanks, R