VCS/BW PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no permit - Woodside Business Park, Peel Investments, Birkenhead

[Dave962]

Thanks for helping.

 

Does this help...

 

let.pdf

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

 

[Dave962]

Hi DX

 

Thanks again for getting back.

 

Sorry to be a pain but have I not already answered these questions back in 2016?

 

If not then I can answer these questions absolutely no problem at all.

 

[dx100uk]

On 19/05/2016 at 01:46, Dave962 said:

HI Dx

 

Please find my response in Caps. Please let me know if you require anything else...

 

Firstly, please check whether this is a PENALTY charge or a parking chargeicon. If this is a PENALTY charge, please see below.

THIS IS A PARKING CHARGE DOES THIS STILL APPLY?

 

For windscreen tickets (NTD) please answer the following questions.

 

 

1 The date of infringement? 22nd NOV 15

 

 

2 Did you appeal to the parking company? YES

 

 

If yes, has there been any response?

YES, UNSUCCESSFUL. I FOLLOWED THIS UP BY APPEALING WITH IAS WHICH WHO WERE ALSO UNHELPFUL.

NOW THEY, OR BW ARE THREATENING ME WITH COURT ACTION.

If no, have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ( PoFA)

NO MENTION OF THIS ANYWHERE, BUT NOT SURE I EVER RECEIVED A NTK

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

NEVER RECEIVED A NTK, HOWEVER THEY WERE CLEAR IN HOW I COULD APPEAL

 

5 Who is the parking company? VCS

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?

YES THEY HAVE TAKEN PICTURES

no location which is why I asked

 

I mean if its worrying you people will know where you are fair comment

 

but the location could mean all the diff.

there could be other threads and pix here [which you should have taken at the time..]

 

 

[Dave962]

HI DX

 

I'm really sorry about that oversight I've no idea why I omitted that first time.

 

The location is Woodside Business Park Peel Investments in Birkenhead.

 

I took some pictures first time round which can be found on the first page.

 

Do you require any other info?

[dx100uk]

a very important piece of info that ...

type in peel investments in our search.

think you'll find as with all peel investments sites in Manchester/Liverpool etc

they are all port authority land covered by byelaws that no tinpot parking company can over ride.

 

vcs as with all airports sites

sc@m parkers out of money when they have zero locus standi 

 

dx

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

I would respond by saying,

Dear Simple Simon,

I am sorry but I didnt think that the taradiddle sent by BW all that time ago was a properly constructed LBA as it did not contain the key information needed to make it one. That means that your latest letter also fails on that count so that will go against you should you wish to continue with your threat.

However, for clarity's sake it is denied that i owe you anything and you know this as I am certain that the difference between a unilateral parking contract and prohibitive sigange has been explained to you many times before at court. However if you need another lesson in the same  I will be happy to give you one. I will then be after the monies owed under VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 for the unlawful processing of my data though, I dont do this for free.

 

Tha may put the brakes on them but they are now getting desperate

 

[Dave962]

Thanks DX EB

 

I've penned a suitable letter now based on your advice which I will pop off in the post tomorrow morning. You're help with this matter is appreciated as always.

 

I'll let you know if I hear any more back off them.

[ericsbrother]

I hope you havent watered it down or lenghtened it by trying to justify anything.

keep it short and brutal

[brassnecked]

Ericsbrother's letters are short and brutal for a good reason, it shows that you know they are mictuating into a Force 10, and their claims are groundless at best fraudulernt at worse,

[Dave962]

Thanks EB BN as always. 

 

The letter was amazing and really appreciated as always, I only tweaked a couple of words as I'm a wimp. However other than that the letter was word for word and should hopefully be with them tomorrow.

 

 

[ericsbrother]

so what did you change?

The epithet simple simon is well known, i didnt invent it but its use does warn the scribblers at VCS that the person writing this letter has read up on the court reports regarding VCS and Excel and that is the entire point you are making.

You KNOW that he holds a busted flush aand are calling his bluff

[Dave962]

Just simple simon and taradiddle. As you say that should have remained included shouldn't it.

 

To be honest tho I thought the rest of the letter was amazing and also did a great job of calling his bluff...

[brassnecked]

should have left Simple Simon in

[Dave962]

Lesson learned - it's going in next time.

[ericsbrother]

did you know what a taradiddle is before you read this draft letter? commonest meaning is pretentious nonsense rather than petty lie. However both equally apply

 

they wont and would have to look it up and again that is the point.

Words are chosen carefully, I have been insulted by experts so have learned my craft

[Dave962]

Hi all

 

Just to let you know I've been summoned to court now. Got the official Claim Form.

 

Any advice please??!

 

They are claiming a total amount of £185

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

Could you give us the information from the forum sticky please? That's the best place to start.

 

 

 

HB

[Dave962]

Hi HB

 

I submitted my AoS and the latest I can see from their website is that it was received on the 23rd. Do you require anything further of me?

 

Hope this covers what you require for now and look forward to hearing from you as always.

 

Many thanks...

 

Name of the Claimant : VCS

 

Claimants Solicitors: Can't see any??

 

Date of issue – 19th Mar 20

 

Date for AOS -  7th Apr 20 (+19 days)

 

Date to submit Defence - 20th Apr 20 (+14)

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1.Breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

 

2.The Defendants vehicle XXXX XXX, was identified in the Woodside Business Park on the 22/11/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely parking without displaying a valid ticket/permit.

 

3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver.

 

4.The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.

 

5.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability.

 

The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

 

What is the value of the claim? £185 (Amount claimed £160 + Court Fee £25)

[honeybee13]

Hi, replying to your PM.

 

If you've submitted the AoS, now you need to work on a defence for later on. Have a look at other VCS claim threads, especially in our Successes forum, to see what defences other people have submitted to similar claims.

 

HB

[Dave962]

Hi HB

 

Thanks for your advice. Ive had a good look on the website for similar VCS cases, but many it seems are for 'no stopping'. There are on for two however which still appear useful.

 

I'm just wary that in my early defence I admitted I was the driver at that particular time. I know this sounds silly, but can I still argue that 'VCS cannot prove that I was the driver'?? I know this goes against what I informed them initially, but just wondering if on the off chance this is a defence that can still be used due to their unscrupulous practices.

 

I am also unsure about using POFA as a defence. I have read the Act and my little brain can not compute what it is saying as it all looks so brief. Again, do you think this is something I could still use as a defence? I'm sure this is a strong defence, but as I say I can't make any sense of the Act.

 

I'm guessing paragraph 2 would still be suitable for my case?

 

With respect to the paragraph 3 can I still reference this, as there was not signage at the entrance to the car park, and as it was night time when I parked, the car park was completely unlit? However, I remember earlier on it was mentioned having an arrangement with your employer gives me supremacy of contract, therefore, would that override this point?

 

With that in mind, would this be  good place to start??

 

As always any tips would be much appreciated, and again apologies for my weaker grasp on the law.

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3. If there was a contract, it is denied that the parking charge is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not incorporated into the contract because [explain].

 

4. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

[dx100uk]

your defence is not due till 20th april

they might well reply to your CPR by then.

 

however it will be the 2 - 5 line std defence we use on all PCM claimform threads

which is a series of std paragraphs that mostly are generic to all private speculative invoice claims

with maybe 1 or 2 that are more specific to your location/type of parking claim circumstances

 

the overriding principle here is you have a permit to park there.

the fact that you made a human error that day is permissible.

 

I would not be sweating about is too much yet.

 

you don't file a second defence

you ultimately might have to file a witness statement that expands and firms up your basic coverall defence much later

but so does simon.

 

and as he is dropping claim left right and centre at present don't hold your breath.

 

[Dave962]

Thanks DX

 

I'll sleep better now. As you can see I'm a little obsessed and I hope this doesn't come across to strong when seeking your advice.

 

You and the others have been first class at reassuring me throughout...as you say still plenty of time. 

 

Thanks again and I'll take another look at it all with a clear head in a few days.

[dx100uk]

hey don't sweat, you sortta don't want a false high temp at present....

[Dave962]

Haha 

 

*runs for thermometer...*