VCS ANPR PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield, S11 8PN

[sh3ffield]

6 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

as a LiP You are entitled to £90 if you have to take time off from work

 

That's great to know thanks! I'll let you know how I get on if it does go to court (or if VCS drops it)

[sh3ffield]

Hello all, a final thank you very much for your help.

 

My case was today and it appears that VCS have blitzed the courts over the last couple of weeks with similar cases.

Another case for the same car park had managed to get hold of the contract, which stipulated 2 hours free parking so the (very fed up with parking cases) judge was dismissing every case thereafter.

A great result.

 

Despite my earlier reservations and the stress and concern I do think I would do this all over again, especially as VCS now owe me costs and travel.

 

For others using the Berkeley Centre Car Park in Sheffield - the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking, so use that in your defence if in court later in the year. This must be costing Simon a lot of money.

 

Thanks again and good luck

 

 

[honeybee13]

Excellent. You were lucky that someone found the contract and was on parade before you.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

did you get a copy???

 

dx

 

[sh3ffield]

24 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

did you get a copy???

 

dx

 

 

Unfortunately not. The only document VCS sent me was a statement of agreement with the landowner from 2018, stipulating that they were allowed to charge for parking but not the terms of that contract. I had asked for the contract and was going to raise the question of what was stipulated in it, but as HB says someone got there first. The contract is from 2010 and has not been updated but suspect VCS may get onto that before too long.

 

The SoA does not mention Excel Parking and VCS ignored that issue. It was not addressed in court due to the case being  dismissed.

 

[dx100uk]

you might be able to workout who produced the contract copy in the previous case by looking at the schedule for today for the court in question?

would be good to be able to approach them ??

 

dx

 

[sh3ffield]

17 hours ago, dx100uk said:

you might be able to workout who produced the contract copy in the previous case by looking at the schedule for today for the court in question?

would be good to be able to approach them ??

 

dx

 

 

Will take a look and pm you if I find out. I assume that anyone who has paid the charge this year for less than 2hrs parking could now take VCS to court to claim back costs

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!

 

[dx100uk]

got the PM..yep sadly could be diff to trace then.

 

dx

 

[sh3ffield]

Hello all,

 

Another update. VCS are appealing on the basis of a contract with the landowner being immaterial.

I assume that if they win its back to court to present my original defence.

I'd assume my original defence would now be strengthened if the VCS contract with the landowner is immaterial.

 

If I'd agreed a contract with anyone it was Excel Parking who have no connection to anyone, and VCS's contract with the landowner is now irrelevant.

 

I'll let you know the outcome of the appeal

[ericsbrother]

Simon Renshaw Smith doesnt believe that the law applies to him or his companies. 

If you have legal cover with your car or house insurance now is the time to look it out and get them involved as appeal costs can be unlimited. If your insurer is prepared to stand by you then let simple Simon know you will be hiring a solicitor and barrister at say, £300ph

 

Also you need to read up on performance of contracts, it is possible that in some circumstances the contract with the LL is immaterial but can VCS actually provide you with something they are offering if another company is the one you made a deal with.

 

VCS have been thrashed on this before both there and at another site and that is why he is playing the big one and hoping the result is different this time round.

 

The courts may of course deny him his appeal if they believe it is a hopeless case or there was no error in law or matters of fact.

If there is an errors in the matters of fact chances are it is VCS who were wrong so the judge will be entitled to reach the conclusion he did anyway.

 

I expect that it will die a death but look out your insurance policies anyway

[sh3ffield]

Thanks, I do have legal cover through my union and will check my insurance.

[ericsbrother]

good, let them know the situation so they cant run away from it

[emmaTPockets]

HI @sh3ffield  did you ever hear anything more about this? ( I hope it's okay to ask?)

[sh3ffield]

11 hours ago, emmaTPockets said:

HI @sh3ffield  did you ever hear anything more about this? ( I hope it's okay to ask?)

 

Unfortuantely it can take up to six months for the right to appeal to be decided so as yet I've heard nothing.

 

I am covered by my insurance, which is lucky as I've been advised that should they be granted their right to appeal costs could be in the tens of thousands. Well worth people being aware of that at the beginning of the process.

[emmaTPockets]

Just a note @sh3ffield the 2010 contract is on one of the threads - not easy to read but is there.

[dx100uk]

open

[sh3ffield]

As an update, VCS were successful in their application to appeal the decision.

 

It was decided that the judge had made an error in law and that VCS's contract with the landowner was of no relevance to people parking in the car park

 

I was due to go to County Court in January for the initial verdict to be appealed. My home insurance subsequently refused to cover my legal costs as in their view I had no contract with VCS' - how very ironic.

 

The following may be useful for anyone else who's case goes to appeal. I  spent a lot time speaking to solicitors and the CAB trying to establish what costs I would be liable for, and received very differing responses from 'nothing as it is a debt' to 'tens of thousands of their legal fees'.

 

Lots of solicitors provide free 30 min consultation and from company was very helpful. They pointed me towards case law where the defendant was only liable for the original charge as per the small claims court hearing. This would have meant being liable for c. £100 if I had gone to County Court, and as such the costs of a barrister to defend me would far outweigh my liability. All advice is that you need representation at County Court so that would have been a big gamble.

 

Having also received advice that I would not necessarily win the appeal based on the Excel Parking defence, I decided to write a letter without prejudice offering to settle out of court, which was accepted. I'm guessing that as an error in law was made, VCS felt confident that that ruling would be sufficient to fight any future claims and didn't want to spend further money on me, especially as I could have won again based on my original case.

 

If I had gone to court and won again, that decision could also have been appealed and the thought of further stress and risk of further legal costs was too much for me.

 

In this instance VCS won, but a small consolation is that taking into account the payment they had to make to me after the Small Claims victory I paid less overall than the original £60 charge.

 

Thanks to the team here for their advice, but if I could wind back time, despite the buzz from winning in the small claims court,  I would pay the initial £60 charge to avoid all the subsequent stress and worry.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

What a strange decision by the Judge. The contract is very much relevant to the motorists. You have a situation where Excel has a contract with the land owner and a separate company taking you to Court

.

Completely perverse . I understand that you got away lightly with the fine [sorry dx-but this time it was a fine!] but it was a payment that you were never liable for.

VCS still lost money on the case but they should have lost considerably more.

You could have gone for a breach of GDPR and that would have got them.

Edited February 8, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[sh3ffield]

4 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

What a strange decision by the Judge. The contract is very much relevant to the motorists. You have a situation where Excel has a contract with the land owner and a separate company taking you to Court

 

Unfortunatley in applying to appeal the case my original defence was not considered, only the claimant's case and the rights or wrongs of the relevance of VCS's contract with the landowner.

 

I suspect if I had gone back to court, the decision that the contract was valid would have helped my case as clearly excel don't have a contract, but that was a risk/cost I didn't want to take, particularly as my argument was not guaranteed to win.

 

The biggest lesson from all this is how arbritrary judgements are - depends on the judge, their mood that day and like or dislike of parking firms.

[brassnecked]

That is the pervisity of interpretations on Contract Law, on the face of it there was No Contract, but if VCS lost again, I reckon Renshaw Smith would appeal it as far as he could go to get precedent as his whole business model is under threat, and he would go for broke to protect that.  A tactical withdrawal is understandable.  He may be on borrowed time as more DJs are waking up to the perverse way these fleecers operate .

[FTMDave]

So just to get the sequence of events right. VCS were granted leave of appeal, but in the end there was no appeal due to an out-of-court settlement. Is that right? 

[sh3ffield]

On 12/02/2021 at 21:27, FTMDave said:

So just to get the sequence of events right. VCS were granted leave of appeal, but in the end there was no appeal due to an out-of-court settlement. Is that right? 

 

correct

 

For the time being I suspect the fact that VCS now have a piece of paper saying that the initial ruling was an error in law is sufficient to fight future cases based on their contract with the land owner. Should they still lose similar cases I guess they will start the appeals process again as the ruling would affect all cases from that car park and could result in a class action from anyone who previously lost their cases.

 

[dx100uk]

Doesnt set a precedent.

 

Dx