Jump to content


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


_Ray_
 Share

Recommended Posts

And damages in Trespass for an unauthorised vehicle  parking upare negligible so unless its a bulldozer smashing a few walls down or damaging fences, hard to claim much at all.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

looking at their contract with JLA on Schedule 1 there is a parking policy  mentioned. As there is no parking allowed except in car parks they cannot issue PCNs for no stopping-it is not within their remit. It is a parking agreement that they have.  indeed Schedule 1 states " Parking Policy." 

Stopping is not parking as was decided in Jopson v Homeguard many years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as No Stopping is a prohibition, albeit ecuseable for a breakdown or involuntary stop, and an attending Recovery vehicle, therefore can never be a "Parking Event" or form any Contract.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One more thing from the Parking Prankster

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

Today's post examines the signage at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, with grateful thanks to Esmerobbo who took photographs and made measurem...

 

This was done way back in 2015 so the signage may have altered since then but perhaps not looking at the signs on their WS. have you also noticed the sly way that post up their signage on the WS. you cannot tell where one stops and the other begins as not all of them have the VCS logo which means they cannot be used by VCS as there is no clue as to their origin. Is it one of the Council's signs and therefore covered by the Road Traffic Act?

 

Another thing. On their contract with JLA one of the stipulations[rule  3.2 ] was that JLA were to reline or line various areas of the site . If these were red or yellow lines on the roads then you put them to strict proof that they lines were  road lines laid down by the Council or lines that have no legal significance as these are JLA lines. Also put them to strict proof of all the roads subject to Bye Laws and the Road Traffic Act. 

Obviously any roads that they cannot prove are subject to those requests, then they cannot say that it is not relevant land. 

 

lf you right click on the map it should open into the Speke area of Liverpool by the airport. The

n click on the little yellow man at the bottom of the page and you will see that the pick up/drop off point is within the area that VCS have got their signs.

 

Now I got the map from a map section on the Liverpool Council website which is designed to show the Council's outermost areas where parking is allowed. The map does say 2022 which if it is correct would mean that VCS are trying to gain money using deceptive practices.

 

I

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

 

 

Ray I started by looking here on the Liverpool website and then on to their pay and display parking  below- time to talk to Liverpool Council followed perhaps by a visit to the Fraud squad.   

LIVERPOOL.GOV.UK

View our Outer Zone on-street pay and display parking locations.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies it's taken a while to respond, just been a really busy time for me lately. Hopefully I can get something for you to have a look at later this week...

 

Thanks @LookingForInfo, that's a ton of helpful stuff. It might take me a while to fully digest and understand it all, purely because this is all pretty new to me.

 

Should I mention what you said with regards to potential perjury and/or GDPR breach in the WS or is that a step too far?

 

Thanks again...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use the words as suggestions rather than an outright claim. "Tantamount to perjury" as opposed to saying "that it is perjury".

Sufficient to put the idea into the head of VCS and the Judge . Hopefully VCS will not want the accusations seen by the Judge especially as here they are merited. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Finally got the first draft of the WS finished - I underestimated how much work this would be, so I know there will be things I've missed and stuff still to add, but this is all I have for the moment.

 

I'm sure it will need much attention and that I will have used many inappropriate phrases, so I'd appreciate any feedback/corrections you can offer...

 

 

Claim Number: XXXXXXXXX

In the County Court XXXXXXX

At XXXXXXX

Number:

BETWEEN: Vehicle Control Services Ltd (claimant)

AND

XXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXX

Witness Statement of XXXXXXX

Introduction:

 

1 - I am the Defendant in this claim. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

2 - In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence section supplied in this bundle, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

 

3 - I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case which is XXXXXXX.

 

4 - I will say that the Claimant’s case is not valid based on the following:

 

4.1 - The Claimant (VCS) is aware there was no legal contract between themselves and the Defendant which suggests their Witness Statement is tantamount to perjury.

 

4.2 - The roads in Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) are covered by local byelaws which supersede any contract between the Claimant and the airport.   

 

4.3 - The Notice to Keeper (NTK) sent to the Defendant is non-compliant.

 

4.4 - As I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I maintain my contact details were obtained illegally from the DVLA as the Claimant relied on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to obtain them which does not apply in this case.

 

4.5 - The Claimant has failed to justify their costs in this matter and is attempting double recovery.

 

5 - Sequence of events:

 

5.1 - As the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged infringement (16/01/2018), he is unable to provide a sequence of events for that date.

 

5.2 - The Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Notice to Keeper (NTK) via post, dated 19/01/2018. The PCN states: Contravention Reason: “46) STOPPING IN A ZONE WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITED” Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Liverpool, L24 1YD.

 

5.3 - Following several months of intimidating letters from the Claimant, and their original legal team (BW Legal), including mention of additional costs, debt collection, court proceedings, CCJs and potential effects on my employment, contact from the claimant ceased after the Defendant sent them a letter, dated 30/05/2018, outlining my reasons for declining to pay.

 

5.4 - Almost 4 years after the date of the alleged incident, I began to receive correspondence from the claimant’s latest legal representatives (ELMS Legal Ltd) and on 04/11/2021, the Defendant received the county court claim form that we are dealing with today.

 

5.5 - The Defendant subsequently received a letter from the Claimant, dated 14/12/2021, stating that ELMS Legal Ltd were no longer acting on their behalf and they would be representing themselves.

 

6 - The Contract:

 

In the Claimants witness statement, at point 13 they state “The Defendant became liable for the parking charge as the vehicle to which they are responsible for was found in breach of the Contract. The evidence adduced to this statement identifies that the vehicle was stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”

 

It is contended that no Legal contract existed between the Claimant and the Defendant at the time of this incidence and that the Claimant knows this is the case despite what they have said in their witness statement.

 

6.1 - In the Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber, Court of Appeal (Appeal number: FTC 51/2011) in Vehicle Control Service (the Claimant) v’s HMRC, Judges’ Berner and Aleksander said “39. We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist. Any contract requires there to be an offer and acceptance.” The court also stated “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 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 right of entry to perform VCS’s obligations under the contract.” The Lord Justices continued “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.”

 

6.2 - It is clear from the above that the Appeal Court is saying that any contract is between the landowner and the Claimant, and not between the Claimant and the Defendant. It is the landowner that is allowing the motorist on to their land, not the Claimant. So, there is no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

6.3 - The Defendant maintains the Claimant is fully aware of the implications of the above judgement and suggests, if that is the case, the Statement of Truth in their Witness Statement is tantamount to perjury.

 

6.4 - According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44 for a contract to be valid it requires a director from each company to sign and two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures. The fact that no witness signatures are present means the deed has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between the Claimant and the Defendant.

 

6.5 - The contract was struck on 25th July 2013 for a fixed period of 24 months from 08/07/2013 meaning the contract expired almost 7 years ago. Therefore, there can be no contract established between the Claimant and the Defendant as there was no valid contract between the Claimant and the Airport at the time of the alleged contravention.

 

6.6 - There is no mention in the contract of ‘No Stopping’ being a contravention that a PCN can be issued for. Therefore, even if the court accepts that there was a valid contract in existence, the Claimant was not granted power by the landowner to issue a PCN for this contravention. Furthermore, ‘No Stopping’ is prohibitive and therefore cannot form the basis of a contract.

 

6.7 - Point 3.2 of contract with LJLA stipulates that the Claimant “shall provide line markings and re-line markings for the various sites”. Therefore, I put the Claimant to strict proof that the road lines where the Defendant’s vehicle was photographed were lines laid down by the City Council rather than lines laid down by the Claimant that have no legal significance.

 

7 - Airport Byelaws:

 

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

 

According to the Claimants Witness Statement, “the defendant’s vehicle was identified stopped on the access road in Liverpool John Lennon Airport”.

 

7.1 - The Claimant states that the vehicle was stopped on the "access road" to the airport. Given that there are four access roads into the airport, depending on where a motorist is arriving from, ‘access road’ is extremely vague. So vague as to be without merit and the case be thrown out. You would have thought the Claimant would know, and therefore specify, the name of said access road.

 

7.2 - In any event, an access road would surely be of such significance that it would be under statutory control and subject to Road Traffic Act 1988 and/or airport byelaws rather than a private parking company.

 

7.3 - The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the road in question is not under statutory control.

 

8 - Notice to Keeper/PoFA

 

In Point 18 of their Witness Statement the Claimant stated their reliance upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) to “hold the Defendant liable for the Parking Charge under the said enactment”.

 

8.1 - Schedule 4 of PoFA allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle but the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The PoFA definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land … on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”. The Claimant hasn’t stated which access road the alleged contravention took place on, but all four access roads at LJLA are subject to statutory control in respect of being covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) and it being a road “to which the public has access”.

 

8.2 - Paragraph 8 (2) states that for an NTK to be relied upon, the notice must - (a) “specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”. As the Claimant hasn’t stated which access road the alleged contravention took place on, the NTK has failed to satisfy the requirements of PoFA in this respect.

 

8.3 - The access roads are also subject to the Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws 17/06/1982. Therefore, schedule 4 of PoFA does not apply, and the Claimant is unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for any charges.

 

8.4 - Throughout their Witness Statement the Claimant uses the term ‘Parking’, on numerous occasions when referring to their actions at LJLA.  The original NTK gives the contravention as ‘Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited’. I submit that the Claimant is deliberately conflating parking and stopping in order to confuse the court. No Stopping is different from Parking as… NEED REFERENCE FOR THIS

 

8.5 - Despite knowing their case cannot rely on PoFA to recover any costs, the Defendant maintains that the Claimant has deliberately misused the PoFA legislation to obtain his details from the DVLA.

 

9. - Double Recovery

 

9.1 - The Claimant's Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in a letter I received on XXXXX the Claimant states that they are not represented by solicitors but are representing themselves"

 

9.2 - As well as £50 legal costs, The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

 

9.3 - PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4 (5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.

 

9.4 - Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recovery.

 

9.5 - Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery i.e.: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) cover the costs of the letters.

 

Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

 

9.6 - In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process.

 

The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''

 

9.7 - The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.

 

9.8 - It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)

 

9.9 - The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the CPRs, the Beavis case, the PoFA and the CRA 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.

 

I invite the Court to dismiss this Claim in its entirety.

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Edited by _Ray_
Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning 8.4, you can find useful definitions of parking and stopping in the new Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022:

 

The provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle.

 

parked/parking = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle)


stopped = an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain at rest whilst in the course of driving
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jopson ve homeguard is the definitive case for proving stopping is not parking.

 

That is a very good WS. I would however point out that the Government brought out a new Code of Practice  on the 20 th of February and is of great help to your case. For instance on the subject of the extra charges they have been described as a "rip off" That in itself should be a notice to the Judge that these extra charges are definitely unacceptable and knowing how they have been described  one would wonder why Ms Arshad and VCS think they should be included.

 

govuk-apple-touch-icon-a318f305290c523aed80082456175b46c95350c0eeac93f42e78a71c7a55544e.png Government clamps down on rogue parking firms with new Code of Practice - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

A new package of measures will protect millions of drivers from unfair and extortionate charges, with a new Code of Practice to help keep cowboy private parking firms in check.

"Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned"

It goes to show that VCS are one of the rogue companies being targeted by the Government and quite rightly. 

 

Neil O'Brien in his foreword to the new Act said  " And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely".

It beggars belief then that   Ms Arshad is continuing to attempt to include rip off fees even now and then have the effrontery to declare that she is not making a false statement. Surely she must have read the new Code of Practice.

 

Lay it on thick that VCS are being economical with the truth. Either VCS will not let this get to Court  or if the Judge doe see it they are likely to kick your case out.

 

I would delete the section relating to sending you the first PCN since they had no way of knowing that you were not the driver. Only after you had informed them that you were not the driver and there is no transference of liability from the driver to the keeper can you claim that they have breached your GDPR for which their continuance in taking you to Court should merit a charge of at least £750.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the consensus is this section should be deleted then I will delete it, but I still maintain they illegally obtained my details. Even if they didn't know I wasn't the driver, they still knew they didn't have a valid contract so the result is the same. Maybe I should amend it to...

 

4.4 - As I was NOT the driver of the vehicle, I maintain my contact details were obtained illegally from the DVLA as (1) The Claimant knew they didn't have a valid contract at the time of the request, and (2) the Claimant relied on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to obtain them which does not apply in this case.

 

As I said though, I can delete it if it's going to cause an issue. 

 

Thanks for the help so far

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would seriously consider deleting the accessing details illegally, it gives them another avenue to arue the toss GDPR comes after they are seen off in court, as then you have proof their DVLA access was unwarranted.

 

As to cases here is a link to acceess case details that are quoted and used when fighting a claim

 

WWW.PARKING-PRANKSTER.COM

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've deleted points 4.4 and 8.5 that mentioned obtaining the details illegally. If there are any other suggestions for improvement and/or amendments, I'd be happy to hear them...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My complaint was that you were saying that your GDPR was breached because you were not the driver. But it would be fair comment saying that knowing the contract was iffy was a breach of your GDPR. More searching questions for the paralegal. Can she honestly say that she told the truth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I've decided to remove any mention of it in the WS as advised...

 

I have a question regarding any legislation I reference in the WS. Do I need to provide the entire PoFA for example or just the part/s I reference? It seems like it would be overkill to provide it all, as the WS could end up running to hundreds of pages. Probably asked and answered, but thought it best to check.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't need to provide a printed copy of any legislation, just a quote of the relevant part will do? That's great if I've understood you right as my WS is starting to get pretty bulky...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/03/2022 at 23:58, lookinforinfo said:

Jopson ve homeguard is the definitive case for proving stopping is not parking.

Sorry to be a pain but does anyone know which part of this judgement demonstrates that stopping is not parking? I've read through it but can't find the relevant section. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, _Ray_ said:

So I don't need to provide a printed copy of any legislation, just a quote of the relevant part will do? That's great if I've understood you right as my WS is starting to get pretty bulky...

 

Correct. Judges will have access to legislation or will already be familiar with it so can check wider context if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect thanks...

 

The date for me to submit the WS is 7th March. Do I have to submit it to VCS by the same date or do I have some flexibility with them? It will be finally finished tonight, but just thinking about the time it takes in the post - don't want to fall at the last hurdle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had time to read things properly.  That is one hell of a Witness Statement  👏

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be assumed to be received by Monday, you really need to post on Friday. Free proof of posting is sufficient for the court but be careful with VCS, they have a habit of claiming they didn't receive claimant's documents. You can get a free proof of posting for VCS also but proof of delivery with a signature is the best counter to their lies.

Send to both at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

stuff simple simon claiming they dont get defendants WS's, don't waste money on recorded.

all you need is proof of posting in law...seriously.

 

it will hurt them more than you if there has to be another hearing, remember they have to pay people to attend, so dont waste your money on recorded, make him waste his again on local reps to attend another hearing date.

 

dx

 

 

 

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry for coming onto this so late.  The following is not essential at all, but lately we have been putting these two paragraphs in right at the end of the WS just to undermine VCS further -

 

XX  Ambreen Arshad (Claimant Witness Statement para 31) is being somewhat disingenuous when she says she "may" be unable to attend the hearing.  I have researched scores of VCS court cases and I cannot find even one where Ms Arshad has ever appeared in court.  The same goes for Mr Mohammed Wali, the other paralegal employed by VCS to write witness statements.  This is particularly remarkable as hearings have been 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.

 

XX  VCS make great show that their actions are supported by their trade association, the IPC (Claimant Witness Statement para 24).  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.  Of course it is of no surprise that a breakaway biased trade 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 by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those paragraphs can be useful but  as FTMDave says not essential as long as Simon's roboclaim has been soundly rebutted, Posted First Class today, free proof of posting, and the law states that First Class is deemed delivered by second business day . With proof of postage Simon is on a sticky wicket if he claims non receipt

 

"When is meant by deemed served?

 

Deemed service is the date calculated in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) part 6.14 that is used by the Court as the delivery of a court form or document.

First class post - The second business day after it was posted, left with, delivered to or collected by the relevant service provider provided that day is a business day; or if not, the next business day after that:

Posted  Deemed Served

Monday  Wednesday

Tuesday  Thursday

Wednesday  Friday

Thursday  Monday

Friday   Monday

 

Delivered to or left at the relevant place before 12.00 midnight, on the second business day after that day.

Fax the second business day after the transmission of the fax (e.g. if the fax is sent at 10.30pm on Monday, it will be deemed served on Wednesday.

Other electronic method e.g. e-mail the second business day after sending the email or other electronic transmission.

Personal Service the second business day after completing the relevant step required by CPR 6.5 (3)"

 

From:  https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/creditor-and-claimant-questions-and-answers/when-is-meant-by-deemed-served.aspx

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...