VCS WINDSCREEN PCN Claimform -- incorrect reg! - Scunthorpe, wasn't a proper car park, it's VCS's site number 02871 ***Claim Discontinued***

[dx100uk]

same

[sirpercival]

Hi folks,

 

I've had a crack at a witness statement, largely matching simsplayer96's but tweaked to suit my case (I hope!)

 

Any notes welcome.

Witness Statement - Redacted.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

As I understand it, the Notice to Driver was stuck on the window of your car with the wrong VRM. 40 or so days later they sent a Notice to Keeper with the correct vrm. So your argument should be that the first PCN was not applicable to your car.

 

the Second PCN should have arrived within 14 days so the Notice to keeper is not compliant.

 

And as Ericsbrother pointed out years ago the NTK was not compliant either.  You have to admire the cheek of VCS trying to go to Court with all that wrong never mind the overcharging. 

 

I have had a look at Crosby Road and it appears to be maintained by the Council rather than a Private road.  if you parked on Crosby road rather than the area where the garages are, VCS have no legal cause to ticket you in the first place since it is not relevant land.  You could ring up the local council and ask if they still maintain it or is it now a private road.

 

As well could you please get clear photos of the no parking signs where you parked and if there is a sign at the start of the parking area advising that you are entering a private area.

[brassnecked]

Those points should be enough to challenge Simon, let alone the 5 year wait to sue.

[FTMDave]

That's great work - well done.

 

Is it worth hedging your bets and putting in extra bits about them having no locus standi, about their signage being pants and about prohibition?

[sirpercival]

Hi all, thanks for the notes - apologies for the lack of response, I've been in the middle of moving house so have had precious little time.

 

I made a couple of tweaks, the final version I sent is attached. Received the VCS WS today which I will post shortly.

Witness Statement - Redacted.pdf

[sirpercival]

VCS WS - I understand I can make a response to this, any comments welcome, but my first thoughts are...

 

8. They list the correct reg no. here despite providing a copy of the PCN which shows incorrect details

21.  "It is respectfully submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charge had been issued incorrectly, they would have engaged with the appeals process further"  

28. "...My Company's employees spent time and resource attempting to recover the debt, as well as instructing external debt recovery providers, all at a cost to the Company. This is not my Company's usual
business and, but for the Defendant ' s refusal to pay, would not have been necessary." quite clearly is their company's usual business and had they not acted improperly then none of this would have been necessary.

34. "In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought." can they actually do that if their named defendant can't be bothered to turn up?

Exhibit 1 - Contract with Landowner, 3.1 states warning signs "VALID PERMIT HOLDERS" and "VALID DISABLED BADGE" are the only ones listed, does this negate their "NO PARKING"? Additionally, their site boundary plan under this doesn't show any plan, this is shown later in Exhibit 4, can this be right?

Exhibit 2 - visible in broad daylight, but no lighting nearby.

Exhibit 4 - Site map, it's clear from this that there is no sign at the entrance to the site, I thought this was required?

My scanner appears to have helpfully skipped page 28 which is their title page for exhibit 6 on the next two pages - this (unredacted) shows the incorrect VRM

 

VCS Witness Statement - Redacted small.pdf

[BazzaS]

Great WS by you, but a possible typo?

Iain Douglas-Hamilton Hughes is a QC, I’m not sure he was awarded a George Cross (GC)……

[brassnecked]

The usual waffle about how they can pursue the Keeper as they assume is the driver. Must be one or the other cannot conflate them.

[lookinforinfo]

What a load of rubbish. How they can have the gall to even think Their contract is with of going to Court with your case is beyond me. This should be circulated around all the parking crooks showing them how not to conduct a parking charge case to Court.

 

The Contract

 

Their contract is with Ongo Homes yet it is signed by the Housing manager from Agra?? Who is Agra? Put VCS to strict proof that Agra can sign on behalf of Ongo and is a Housing Manager capable of signing?

 

The contract applies to the Ongo homes car parks only. According to the Notice to Driver no parking is allowed at the garages. So it is not a car park and the contract does not then apply to the garages.

 

The map of the area owned apparently by Ongo has not been verified by the Client and "The garages" are outside of the site boundary!

 

Their WS

 

Point 12 Time and time again VCS continue to call a No Parking area as having a contract. And time and time again the Courts throw them out since being prohibitory it is not capable of forming a contract

 

Point 15 there are no sign marks shown on their "Plan" where the garages are

 

point 19 the Defendant is at a loss to understand why Mr Robinson states that the NTK is compliant when it is patently not. It arrived out of time and the wording is missing the statement that the alleged debt can be transferred from the driver to the keeper is crucial. How could he swear that his WS is truthful?

 

I have to stop for a while but will be back.

 

Point 16 the NTK is not compliant with PoFA.. It should have arrived within 14 days of the alleged  offence  since this was the first relevant PCN from VCS. Relevant in the sense that the vrm was correct.

 

Continuing....WS 

point 22   {vi } If "double recovery" is not to their liking then use the Government Minister's description of the extra charges-  as "a rip off" which is actually accurate.

 

It was always Parliaments intention that £100 should be the most the parking companies could charge hence in PoFA 2012   Schedule 4  s4 [5] 5)

The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) .

 

It is only the greed of the parking companies that have pushed the boundaries to such an extent that Mr Robinson brushes over them as "nominal contribution"  in point 28  when it is a massive 60% addition to the cost surely making it a penalty as well as an unlawful charge.

 

In the new  Private Parking Code of Practice it is made quite clear that these extra charges are not allowed.

 

9. Escalation of costs

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

Although the final parts of the Code do not come into force until next year to allow time to redraw PCNs, signage and Land owner contracts, the Government expected that those parts of the Act which could be brought in straight away , should be.

 

It would seem that VCS by not adhering to the Code of Practice are one of the rogue companies that Parliament is targeting. As they are in breach of the Code, their ability to access DVLA data should surely be suspended at the very least.

 

Minister Neil O'Brien said when introducing the new Act

 

"he publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation."

 

So it is quite clear that VCS are totally ignoring the fact that they are in breach of the new Act and trying to hoodwink the Court into believing that they are entitled to rip off motorists all the while trying to justify their own greedy terms.

 

 

[sirpercival]

Thanks, I plan to start bashing out a draft response this weekend hopefully! Any more notes most welcome!

[FTMDave]

I don't think you have an automatic right of reply to VCS's WS, which is why we generally recommend to wait for the opposition's before sending yours off.

 

However, you could try to send a Supplemental Witness Statement in - the judge might accept it, or might not.  It's certainly worth a try.

[brassnecked]

Its worth noting it and preparing one as they would be handy as notes for reference for the hearing anyway if judge wants clarification, relating it to your WS and the tripe VCS have submitted.

[sirpercival]

Letter from the court notes

 

"Each party may, by 4pm on 22 April 2022 file in court a concise written response to the documents and statements served by the other party. At the same time a copy of the response must be served on the other party."

 

I've started putting notes together as discussed on this thread - I believe that the contract is actually signed by "AREA housing manager" rather than "AGRA" not that it's very easy to read!

  

I need to do a fair bit on formatting etc. but the bones of it are there I think?

 

Again, any comments welcome, thanks in advance!

VCS WS Response FIRST DRAFT.pdf

[FTMDave]

4 hours ago, sirpercival said:

"Each party may, by 4pm on 22 April 2022 file in court a concise written response to the documents and statements served by the other party. At the same time a copy of the response must be served on the other party."

I've never seen that before.  Well done the judge.

[FTMDave]

What you've written is absolutely magnificent.

 

If you want, we have recently been including versions of the two paragraphs below at the end of WSs, and they tie in with your comments about the IAS being a kangaroo court and the WS author telling porkies -

 

Mark Robinson 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 Robinson, Ms Ambreen Arshad or Mr Mohammed Wali - the usual three authors of VCS's witness statements - have ever appeared in court.  This is particularly remarkable as during the last two years hearings have been by telephone or on-line due to 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.

 

In paragraphs 6, 24 & 28 of their Witness Statement,  VCS make great show of the fact that their actions are supported by their trade association, the IPC. Until 2013 there was only one trade association for the industry, the British Parking Association. Its appeals body cancelled too many tickets for the likes of VCS, who “jumped ship” and joined a new, rival association, the IPC. This initiative was organised by Mr William Hurley and Mr John Davies of Gladstones Solicitors. The IPC, its appeals body the IAS and the firm of solicitors at the time most associated with parking litigation were all run by the same two people, in a blatant conflict of interest. Of course it is of no surprise that a breakaway biased parking association rubber stamps VCS's actions. It is neither here nor there what the IPC considers reasonable or lawful. What is important is what the law in England & Wales considers reasonable and lawful.

Edited April 12, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[brassnecked]

Excellent stuff, clearly rubbishes the VCS drivel. with FTM Daves suggestion to round it off looks brilliant

[sirpercival]

Ooh, thanks FTMDave, I will definitely include that. Much credit to lookforinfo for providing many of the points too!

 

Thanks all, I'm away.for a day but will get it finished off tomorrow

[FTMDave]

I've slightly edited what I wrote.

 

Mark Robinson is the new kid on the block so it's not actually true that he never turns up to court, it's VCS's bods as a whole who never turn up.  I wouldn't want them to trip you up on this.

[sirpercival]

Thanks again, going with this then I think.

VCS WS Response Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

That is superb, and surely enough to sink Simon.

 

I have some tweaks to suggest.

 

In (7) you start with "The signage is poor".  Can you expand on that and explain why?

 

You then continue in (7) with "there is no evident planning permission for them from North Lincs council" so hammer it home by continuing "which is a criminal offence and no contract can be formed when criminality is involved".

 

It's perfectly possible that the judge won't have heard of the new Act - I hadn't until forum regular Lookinforinfo wrote a load of useful info on the site a month ago - so start (18) with "I note that the new Private Parking Code of Practice (Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019) makes it quite clear that such extra charges are not permissible".

 

Again in (19) mention the name of the Act "the Government expected that those parts of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 which could be brought in immediately should be".

 

However, you've put in a massive amount of research to sink VCS.  Take that Simon!

Edited April 14, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[brassnecked]

Yes superb more than enough to give Simon squeaky cheeks, with FTM Dave's tweaks that's good to go, your submission more than shows the claim is vexatious.

[FTMDave]

All the points you've made are excellent.

 

However, sometimes you jump from one legal argument to another and back again.

 

I appreciate you're following the order of Simon's WS but I'm just thinking that a better order of the paragraphs might be -

 

1, 8, 9, 10  (the rubbish PCN)

 

2, 3, 4, 5, 6  (the rubbish contract)

 

7  (the rubbish signs)

 

11-22  (Unicorn Food Tax and general).

[brassnecked]

Yes doesn't have to absolutely follow Simon's missive so long as the rebuttal to his arguments is in there and logically presented.

[sirpercival]

Yeah, I had thought it was maybe a little bit back and forth - will look at smooshing things around