VCS/ELMS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - Liverpool Airport - No Stopping

[dx100uk]

Theres no set time limit, its decided by the judgement or order from the allocated court and their loading.

 

DX

[_Ray_]

Just received a hearing date for this, it's 21/03/22 which means my witness statement needs to be in before 7th March - is that right? 

 

When do VCS have to pay the court fee by?

[dx100uk]

should be on the same letter.

 

100's of vcs/excel no stopping witness statents here to get reading so you have a good idea what yours should contain/layout/exhibits

[_Ray_]

Thanks dx, I have a question triggered by your last reply...

 

Nowhere on the letter I received does it mention anything about the court fee or when VCS would need to pay it.

 

The letter says "Before the claim is listed for hearing, the judge has ordered that a preliminary hearing should take place :- Dispute Resolution Hearing - you will receive a BTMeetme call between... (then the time &date)"

 

Is a preliminary hearing normal, have I received the correct letter from the court? 

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

various courts deal with things in different ways , we've seem many things change around the country since covid.

 

dx

[_Ray_]

I've just received a witness statement from VCS. When I've had time to read it fully, I'll scan and upload it - hopefully get it done tomorrow some time...

[brassnecked]

Great post it us soon as you can, its likely the usual CTRL-C CTRL-V tripe from one of their paralegal's  so the team will be able to help you dissect and counter it.

[lookinforinfo]

When you upload, please include the contract, PCNs, photos and maps since their truth can be somewhat different to yours.

[_Ray_]

What do I do if I can't get the file small enough?

 

The original scanned docs came in at 115mb; I've used the PDF Reducer software and run it through a second compression site but it's still 6.5mb and the quality is starting to suffer now. Is it OK to split the file and upload 2 documents, or is there another way?

 

Many thanks...

[FTMDave]

Don't worry if there are two seperate documents.

[_Ray_]

OK, here's  the WS I received from VSC

 

claimants WSa.pdf

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Claim number showing on part 1 page 4 ....uploads unapproved.

[FTMDave]

The usual VCS cut & paste carp - we put loads of signs up mate, loads & loads & loads, honest.

 

In the midst of all the cut & paste, I noticed Ambreen was hesitant in (6) about the contract.  Well then we see why.  It ran out on 7 July 2015!

 

Anyway, you need to get your own WS done.  Alaska101 too had to face a VCS airport no stopping claim.  Look at the attachment at post 110 here (sometimes the post numbers go a bit wonky, if it's not post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below 110) where there is a cracking WS you can use as the basis of yours

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments

 

 

[dx100uk]

PDF sorted

[_Ray_]

Thanks for sorting that - proper annoyed I missed that claim number 

 

I've seen that WS recommended on other threads so I've been looking at it already. It's going to take me a few days to get this finished, but I'll paste it up here before I do anything with it.

[lapwing_larry]

I see they are rewording the contravention code 46 from what it is in the contract.

PCN : Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited

Contract: Parking/waiting on a roadway where stopping is prohibited

 

Stopping is not the same as parking/waiting. In fact none of the contravention codes in the contract concern stopping. Do they have the authority from the landowner to litigate for stopping events?

 

One suspects they have deliberately reworded this contravention code in the PCN to make you think they do.

[brassnecked]

So that would ensure that a stop due to breakdown would lead to an invoice for the broken down vehicle, and the AA/RAC or other tow truck sent to move or get the vehicle going again.

If its Bye laws, they can't unilaterally alter them in a contract.

[FTMDave]

Great work from lapwing_larry.  Make sure that's included in your WS when you rubbish their contract.

[lookinforinfo]

Ambreen Arshad's WS is a load of disingenuous tripe from start to finish.

 

The defendant's car was stopped on " John Lennon Airport L24 1YD" according to the PCN  and in "John Lennon Airport " on the claim form. That is so vague giving the size of the airport and is not helped by the photographs of the defendant's car which appears to be on a road that is governed by the Road Traffic Act with none of their myriad No Parking Signs visible in the photos provided with the NTK.

There are lots of pretty maps in their WS of the airport  [Elms are specialists in writing with coloured pencils ]but not one of them shows where the defendant's car was stopped! At the end of the WS they show innumerable photographs of places on the airport that would appear to be totally irrelevant since none of them appear to match the photos on the NTK.

In her WS  Ms. Arshad states that the car was parked on the "approach road" to the airport. Considering that there are four approach roads in to the airport depending on where motorists came from, approach road is extremely vague. So vague as to to be without merit and the case be thrown out. You would have thought that VCS would know and therefore specify the name of the approach road.

 

In any event, an approach road would surely be of such significance that it would be under statutory control and subject to air port Bye laws.

https://www.liverpoolairport.com/media/3936/liverpool-john-lennon-airport-byelaws-september-2021.pdf

There is no mention in the bye laws about no stopping.

There is no proof that the road on which the defendant stopped was not under statutory control and/ or  airport Byelaws. I believe that VCS cannot now introduce new evidence to provide strict proof since they have alleged that their "contract" gives them the power to not provide strict proof.

 

The contract.

The contract was signed on behalf of JLA by L O'Shaughnessey. It was not witnessed for either VCS nor JLA rendering the contract null and void. Moreover since the Airport was actually owned by the Peel group when the contract was signed  and then in 2019 the Peel Group sold 65% of its shares to Ancala LLP and Liverpool Council there is nothing to suggest that there is any link between JLA and the current land owners and VCS are put to strict proof that any contract exists with the acceptance of all the current owners.

 

Even if the Court accepts that there was a contract in existence it is obvious that it cannot apply at Liverpool airport as the land is not  relevant land under the Protections of Freedom Act 2012. Schedule 4  3{1}

3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

 

Further a contract cannot be formed from a prohibition despite what Ms Arshad alleges. There has to be an offer, an acceptance and a consideration for there to be a contract. Stating No Parking is not a  contract however the paralegal tries to wriggle with the actualite.

 

The £60 overcharge

 

 

Crackdown on private car parking firms will eliminate unfair fines - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

Unfair private parking tickets will be eliminated through the introduction of new rule for private car parks.

At long last the government are bringing out their new CoP which will come into effect  later this year and will crack down on rogue parking firms . I include VCS in that list as the government pamphlet goes on to say that  " Currently, private parking firms are able to hide behind non-specific, pseudo-legal and aggressive language when pursuing motorists. The Code of Practice will provide new higher standards.  "

This WS is a classic example. Nowhere is the mention of the roads on the airport are covered by the Road Traffic Act and/or airport bye laws. Nowhere on the WS or the PCN or the Claim form actually point out where they think the alleged breach took place.

Nowhere on the contract does it state that they will adhere to the Law relating to parking and to PoFA 2012 just that they will use the Code issued by the BPA  which they can break wit impunity since any attempt by the BPA  to punish them would mean that VCS would just move to the IPC. It is a totally corrupt system at the moment and the cowboys in the parking industry are exploiting it for all its worth.  [£840 million in 2020 ].And finally the Government are preventing these greedy companies from charging a spurious £60 or £70 for "Debt recovery" when what they mean is that they are paying off the debt collector who failed in their mission to get the driver to pay. 

It is a sad reflection of just how low these parking companies go that they spout on about Parking Eye v Beavis when this case does not involve a car park at all but is on a major road with no permission to park. Yet they fail to mention kemble v farren [1829] where Judge Tindall said "  ‘But that a very large sum should become immediately payable, in consequence of the nonpayment of a very small sum, and that the former should not be considered as a penalty, appears to be a contradiction in terms;  "

 

In light of other cases that Ms Arshad has been involved with, it beggars belief that she has not come across some that have been thrown out because  a] the land was not  relevant land  b]  the contract was invalid  c] the correct company did not sign the contract d] the company had not proved where the car was parked  e] the £60 was an attempt at double recovery.

 Yet despite all of those this paralegal can brazenly aver that she has told the truth when VCS rarely win well defended cases at this airport. The error of omission is hardly the whole truth is it.

 

For all those reasons this case should not only be thrown out but this case involves a serious case of breaching the GDPR of the defendant. This sloppy run case should never have gone past the first post missing as it does even the basic evidence necessary to have any chance of success.

Edited February 9, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[lapwing_larry]

Well said lookinforinfo. Just one point to note, VCS already left the BPA and joined the IPC (they refer to IPC in the WS even though BPA membership is in the contract).

Even the toothless BPA code was too onerous for them!

[_Ray_]

Thanks everyone, this is all incredibly helpful information

[brassnecked]

When you have constructed your draft WS post it up here so Team can suggest tweaks and rebuttals to Ambreen's tripe. Lookedinforinfo's post above is a succinct dissection of her floundering drivel verbage.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Lapwing. I did think  that they were with the IPC but when I checked on line, BPA said that they were members with them.

I have just rechecked and BPA have Vehicle Control solutions not Services.  {It was gone midnight when I checked.}

 

[lapwing_larry]

6 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Thanks for that Lapwing. I did think  that they were with the IPC but when I checked on line, BPA said that they were members with them.

I have just rechecked and BPA have Vehicle Control solutions not Services.  {It was gone midnight when I checked.}

 

Yes, when I'd double checked my facts, I noticed that same potential for confusion. 

[lookinforinfo]

Ray I am trying to have a go at he para legal so much so that VCS will not even take the case to Court. 

I have already stated some things that she has ignored but next I am going for the jugular.

 

This is based on an actual case involving VCS and HMRC.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/575c050ce5274a0da9000028/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf

 

This was heard at an appeal Court so what the Judges say here are to be observed by Judges in Lower Courts.

The whole read is very interesting since VCS are trying to say the the charges imposed on motorists in their car parks are either penalties or damages for a breach of contract or they are damages for trespass.

 

However on the Contract issue the Judges said 

39]We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist. Any contract requires there to be an offer and acceptance.  {Which rather scuppers Ambreen's notion that it was unneccessary to apply the offer/acceptance/consideration because the contract was formed by mutual promises!} It beggars belief that VCS allowed Ambreen to say that considering the Appeal Court' s decision.

 

40]  On the facts of this case we do not consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a 15 contract between it and the motorist. VCS was not in a position, by virtue of its limited licence, to make any offer of a right to park. The ability to offer such a right was not conferred by the contract with the client, either expressly or by virtue of the nature of the interest in the car park conferred on VCS. That interest did not amount to a licence to occupy, or give VCS any right to possession. It merely conferred a 20 right of entry to perform VCS’s obligations under the contract.

 

What the Court is saying that it is the land owner/VCS contract not a VCS/motorist contract.It is the land owner that is allowing the motorist on to their land not VCS. So there is no contractual relationship between VCS and the motorist.

 

 

41]The warning signs erected in the car park do not assist VCS in these circumstances. The reference in those signs to the fact that the motorist is entering into a contractual agreement cannot create a contract where there is no relevant offer from VCS that can be accepted. 

 

So VCS have known all along that they do not have contractual rights over motorists. Their Statement of Truth at the end of the WS is tantamount to perjury and a serious breach of the Defendants GDPR even issuing a PCN in the first place let alone taking them to Court.