I'd just like to add that I'm really enjoying this thread. VCS are so scummy - am very glad you're going after this - good luck, @holmer444!

Haha hello! I just had the urge yesterday to login and to see what VCS have been up to and stumbled across this. I am definitely keeping out of Brook Retail Park! @jenn1I hope you can update us - would be good to see them take another thrashing at the same car park...!

To echo what the others have said, might be useful to show us what they sent you and what you've done so far?

So this can be added to the success thread! Odd day - was listed for 11.30am, then rang to say it was going to be at 12.15pm then pushed back to 2.15pm. They had a 'Mr Tate' as a lawyer. Standing: The judge briefly went through standing and gave it to them. He relied upon the caselaw (Beavis and the Buckingham palace quote) and VCS v HMRC that VCS had stated, saying that even though the service agreement was out of date, it didn't matter to the motorist. Notice to Driver: Judge brought up the timestamped picture of the NtD in the window. Their lawyer said something like, 'oh how odd there's something on the window. It's blue though, not yellow, so it's not a PCN and I don't know what it could be but it's not the company policy to have blue PCNs...' Judge said because my parents hadn't seen the NtD, we couldn't be sure that it was an NtD and that VCS had not mentioned a NtD in their WS. But he wouldn't take any questions on what else it could be, considering it was a patrolled, small car park and the driver was only gone for a short time so it's unlikely someone else put something on the windscreen... Notice to Keeper: Judge said because there wasn't a NtD, the NtK had arrived on time (within 14 days). But then he said the NtK was not compliant with Para 9, Sch 4 POFA. Specifically Para 9(2) Schedule 4 - so the specified period of parking and describing the circumstances during which it was in breach 'was not adequately described.' The judge said this was mandatory. Mr Tate/lawyer, said it was unrealistic that a parking warden could put the times in and out as this would be time-consuming and impractical. Judge said it wasn't adequate. I would maybe mention this in other Brook Retail Park cases - that if they choose not to put an NtD then they have to use para 9, which is mainly meant to be for remote detection, but that's not the motorists problem... Then said on that basis claim dismissed. Mr Tate asked for the right to appeal. Judge said no (but then something about a circuit judge?). We didn't get to discuss costs. He also dismissed the other case in the interest for time as the facts were identical. I am really baffled about the whole thing - on the one hand, I feel morally vindicated that not a penny goes to that awful, unscrupulous company. If anything, I take some comfort that they had to pay for a lawyer. But on the other hand, you do put time and money (printing, posting, driving to take pictures) into the process. Not an easy thing to do if you're balancing lots of other priorities. Still though, I think I would do the whole thing again. Massive thanks CAGGERS! @FTMDave @lookinforinfo @dx100uk Donation on the way!

Tomorrow is the day! I was wondering if there were any good threads / resources that set out what costs to ask for? Just want to be prepared in case we get to that stage. I did look myself but didn't find something that was clear - just someone saying they didn't get work recouped because they took a holiday day // someone saying because it via telephone they didn't get costs. So any guidance? Presumably I can at least ask for postage/envelopes/printing? Also, if you have any final tips for the actual hearing - let me know! Thanks!

Thanks Dave - that's super, super helpful! I appreciate it! I can definitely hold off going to the post office until tomorrow early afternoon. So if anyone has an additional comments / typos to point out / thoughts / contributions to make then if possible please before 1pm tomorrow because I'll hit print and walk to the post office then. Massive thanks Caggers for all your help so far!

Ah Dave, thanks! Yes that was the Mum/Wali's one. Okay great, so no changes, ready to be printed and sent!

You're a !

Hello all, Here is the second WS. It's a bit of a different tone because I felt quite heated reading Ambreen's WS and she made different points to Wali. I haven't put the exhibits in so just ignore all references to that. I'll pop them in before posting. If you only have time to read one WS, then please just read the content of this one. I'm quite happy with the first WS so I'm confident sending that one. Thanks and so sorry again it's so late! DRAFT C2 WS2 Redacted compressed.pdf

Hi everyone, Here's the final version for WS 1. I ought to put it in the post tomorrow for VCS and then email to the court Wednesday. Apologies for the tight turnover, I was struck down with a bug over the past few days, but if you could cast your eye over it, that would be fab! I'm still working on WS 2 but that should be done by tonight/tomorrow morning. Thanks! Draft WS4 redacted and compressed(1).pdf

Thanks for the feedback and what a nice compliment! I'll implement the changes tomorrow and post up a final draft. Then use that to write / copy & paste the second WS. I think the weakest point is definitely about the money / double costs and that's because I don't really get it. £100 for charge is allowed. £60 - debt recovery / contractual costs & interest. I've read threads on the unicorn tax, but I still don't get the abuse of process? Can I also just say that debt recovery is literally their business? It says so in the schedule of the Service Agreement that they only got paid like £12/sign and then they don't get paid to manage the car park so their business model is the PCNs so why do I need to pay for how their business is run? £35 - what's an issue fee? It additionally says £25 hearing fee so I don't think the issue fee is the court fee? But I'm not sure. If you have any articles or explanations I can read great - I have genuinely looked through threads and read them but money confuses me a bit! Also @dx100uk you said earlier you didn't think it was actually 90 min free parking. Without being able to find the planning permission - do you have tips on where I would look to see if it's actually 2 hours free parking? Be nice to sprinkle another tidbit about them having contempt for the rules.

Hi there, Here is my draft WS. It is long - but VCS just said such stupid stuff that I wasn't sure how to make it more concise. Let me know your feedback! Thanks DRAFT WS compressed and redacted.pdf

Hello! I'm a bit ahead of you in the timeline because the same thing happened in our case, so I'm now writing my Witness Statement. They messed up and wrote that we parked in a 'restricted / prohibited area' but then said we walked off site. Would I be able to get a copy of your unredacted Notice to Keeper to use as evidence that they made a mistake and are trying to contort it into an contravention? As Dave said, would be helpful! You can message me privately so it's off the public forum.

You are wonderful, Dave!! I shall get the WS drafted soon as I can! Thank you so much for your help!

Hi Dave, Hope you enjoyed the football and thanks for looking over the WS. I have two questions: 1) Strategy - for my mum's car, considering 3 of us were insured on it before it was sold (me, mum, dad) do you think it's worth just playing the 'sue the driver not me' and evade whether she was there or not? And then say POFA wasn't fulfilled so can't be held liable at keeper. I wanted to point out in the WS they should be able to identify the driver considering they had a patrol officer and their privacy notice on their sign says: 'These images will include the recording of the vehicle number plate and may also include images of any person(s) associated with the vehicle. Images are collected for the purpose of identifying the driver or keeper responsible for any charge arising from failure to follow the contractual terms and conditions of the site.’ Obviously in practice they won't have taken images cos that would be a GDPR/privacy nightmare to store. But its their threat, so why not ask them to produce it? Or should you think its best to to make the statement as you suggested and say they were there and keep it vague about who was driving, like the wording you used suggests? 2) Planning permission: I can't find anything in the portal, I emailed the council and they sent me a booklet about advertising and signs and asked which ones I meant. So I'll reply with pictures. But aside from hopefully the council replying saying they don't have permission - I don't know how else to prove that they didn't have planning permission. Sorry I have so many questions - writing two WS's (even if they overlap) is a bit of an undertaking!