VCS PCN Claimform - operator photos - no stopping Gallagher Leisure Park sc@nthorpe

[lookinforinfo]

You could quote VCS v Quayle to back up your response to who was driving-

http://nebula.wsimg.com/ba23da00fdbf49863b82719de49e2d6c?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 Then add to Town and Country Planning  [Control of Advertising] Regulations 2007 by po inting out that without permission

a] that their signage is illegal and a contract cannot be performed with you for that reason

b] they gave an under taking to the  BPA that they complied with all the legal and statutory requirements in order to be allowed to access the DVLA database. There is a question therefore whether they are in breach of the GDPR by obtaining your data fom the DVLA.

 

Book

[ericsbrother]

point 1 I wouldtn sya that, I would just deny being the driver or state that there is no liability as the keeper and that obtaining the keeper details for the vehicle  is the only way they could have made any contact with you.

 

for point 2 I would beef this up by saying that they ahve failed to produce any evidence of an agreeemtn with the landownr that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make civil claims in their own name by way of a CPR31.14 request for documents so you believ that they do not have  locus standi in this matter. This is supported by data from Companies House that show the entity they originaly signed a contract with did not exist at the time of this event.

 

If you werent the driver just say so at point 5 rather than play grnadmothers footsteps. I would tidy thsi para up to just say that they fialed to create a keeper liability, their accessing of the DVLA database was without reasonable cause as they know that none of their  charge notices are compliant with the POFA so cannot create a keeper liability and it is for them to provide STRICT PROOF as to who was the driver at the time.  This puts the urden of proof back to then rather than allowing a judge to use balance of probablity to decide that your were likely to be the driver Also do not say anything about passengers either, if it is likely that you were in the vehicle then you can siad to be controlling it and law that makes an employer responsible for his chauffeur will apply.

In short give as little away as possible whist slaging off their Ws thrust on  it was probably you

Point 7, unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14.2(g) if you fail to quote this the you will get nothing. You also need a separate list fo your costs that include LiP research of 5 hrs @£19ph, loss of income, travek costs etc. Apart from travekl you ahd better ahve the numbers on this schedule or you will get 50p for the bus fare

point 8 planning. Agaion you state that they dotnhave it and you need to quote the research  paper that is  found by a link on the parking prankster's blog for 16th dec 2017. You make copies of the whoel article and copies of the papwer that is found via the lonk and in your WS you get the absolute chapter and verse right rather than just a vague reference. Thsi is an important point that judges rarely have come across before so you need to shove it down their throats or they will beliebv the lie that the parking co's dont need it as it is implied permission. NO IT ISNT, the size of the sigsn and their content make it thus, plus of course the ANPR cameras need separate planning consent so again you shove it hard. ask the council about this, you still ahve time.

 

Also you need to dig out persuasive cases to help you and quote them and make copies of the reports from where you find them, A screen shot of the parking pranksters blog will suffice as long as the case ref and court datails are there.

 

when peopel beat off a claim here they rarely give us that informatuion, it is important to us but once their case is solved they tend to wander off an only come back when another problem pops up. shame but there you go.

 

So go through you WS and expand on the points you want to amke and also take more tiem rebutting their badly quoted cases. Yet again you will find reports on court claims where these same arguments have been spat out so quote them (ie VCS v Smith, Desborough CC, dec 2016 case ref xx11yy2gh)a nd then put the ful report in your bundle as an annexe with the other cases referred to and the stuff on planning law etc.

You get one chance to do tbis so chuck in the kitchen sink if it is even remotely relevant

 

The other thing you ahve not touched upon is the man reasonas to why they dot ahve a contract and that is " no stopping" isnt an offer of terms for parking, it is prohibitive and any contarcvt that relies on you brweaking it to form it is an unfair contract and thus the supposed claim uis for an unlawful penalty and not a contractual sum. Again there is stacks about this on the pranksters blog so look it up, quote the cases and copy the articles into your evidence  bundle as annexes to the WS  Put his near the top of your WS, certainly above the bit about siganeg being hidden by a bin.

Edited March 26, 2019 by ericsbrother

[stevehatesbankers]

Hopefully this is suffice

Witness Statement against VCS amend copy.pdf

[stevehatesbankers]

Delivery in the morning to my local court so if any further guidance please advise 

[ericsbrother]

things I would change if you have time,

DO NOT SAY I am unable to confirm who the driver is, it just invites trouble. This has been saud before but you have ignired, state there is no keeper liability and leave it at that. They knowyou are the keeper, it is for them to show STRICT PROOF as to who was driving at the time.

point 3 WHERE IS THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE SIGNAGE BEINGPROHIBITIVE. You must hammer home this point as already said.

never ask the court to ask VCS to supply proof, you state that they havent, that is what STRICT PROOF is all about.

yu dont say folloing on from anything, it is not a conversation but a statement so if it relies on something above being wrong or incorrect you say IN ANY CASE to show that it is a stand alone point with its own merits.

If it is reliant on something above being true then you number the point as  (b)  or (ii) so it is clear it is a follow on point

Move point 11 up to point 1 if they fail on this point everything else is irrelevant. ( bit like their signage terms threatening to add recovery costs at the bottom, It relies on other things being true that arent)

 

You have had planty of time to do your research and guidance as to what is important but you have chosen to argue the more minor points in detail. If you have submitted this then you had better push the salient points on the day and hope that you are not cut short.

Now I wil reiterate, a sign that says somehting is prohibited isnt a contract offering you anything so their claim is not only incorrect but the amount claimed will be an unlawful penalty.

[stevehatesbankers]

Just wanted to update you and thank you for all the help and support in this matter. Just received a letter from Vehicle Control Services enclosing a Notice of Discontinuance adding that a copy has been served on the Court. Can expenses be reclaimed for the time it has taken to research, write and respond in these matters?  

[ericsbrother]

Yes it can but it is at the judge's discretion and they will consider how "unreasonable" the behaviour of the claimant was in prosecuting this claim but wont consider the fact they knowingly went after you without a proper cause for action

 

you can point out that Gladdys have lost or withdrawn hundreds of claims in the same manner so it was their duty to advise their client that any claim was doomed to fail due to a lack of a contract and thus a cause for action in the first place..

 

you pursue this under CPR 27.14.2(g) and must lay out your costs as a FULL COSTS RECOVERY ORDER.

5 hours LiP research and preparation at £19.50 per hour plus you copying/stationery/postage costs.

expect to get little or nothing though if they throw the towel in with plenty of time to go.

 

Draft up your letter and  we will have a read of it.

 

You should also consider suing them for breach of the GDPR/DPA as they had no reasonable cause for obtaining your keeper details so broke the KADOE agreement with the DVLA by obtaining and processing them.

 

VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 sets that as a flat £500 so when you get a response from the cost recovery request.

If that is successful they may pay the demand without going to court, it has happened.

 

Every claim for breach of the DPA/GDPR bar one has been successful in court and ther one that wasnt was because they parking co cancelled the charge once they knew that it was incurred just to get them to obtain the keeper details so they cold be sued.

 

All of the others were as a result of parking cos taking a rubbish claim to law and then losing or backing down so you would have every reason to follow those successes.

[stevehatesbankers]

Cheers ericsbrother, will report back in due course.

[dx100uk]

if you work and have to take a day off to attend the court hearing you can also try to get the std £90 out of em for lost earnings