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

[Dave962]

One thing I didn’t do, was no all the pages. I numbered the WS part, but because I divided the Exhibits so clearly, I didn’t think it was worth it.

 

have i cocked up with that, shall I ask the court to number the pages too?

 

sorry about this just fretting cos it’s last day (14 days) that’s all

Edited October 9, 2020 by Dave962

[AndyOrch]

Dont push your luck you are lucky they are going to  insert the missed exhibit...asking them to number them is really pushing too far.....you are litigant so should be allowed a little leniency.

[Dave962]

Thanks Andy.

yeah I’m happy they can make that one significant change. It is pretty crystal clear how I’ve divided it, I just wasn’t sure how serious a sin this was, if it was like a game changer or something. Hopefully the clarity of the bundle otherwise marked is enough.

[Dave962]

I received VCS' WS yesterday, shall I post it up?

 

As for the extra documents in the bundle, I can see:

 

A VCS Terms and conditions of Contract (Fully comp scheme), between VCS and Peel Holdings (L&P) Ltd

They have omitted the incorrectly labeled sign map, and replaced it with a OS Map of the business park, with only the boundary of the car park marked on it.

A VCS Sign, that has seen the BPA sign replaced with IPC - However, the sneakiest part is that the revision at the bottom, is EXACTLY THE SAME AS EACH OTHER! 

They have included new photographs of the sign on site, which clearly show the site number - funnily enough, this picture was not sent to me last time, and I have no evidence of signs with site numbers that they sent to me.

The pics are from 2014 too, don't know if that makes any odds?

Photographs of the car on the day.

My appeal and their reply.

Funnily enough, they have omitted the photograph showing my actual Woodside Business Park pass, even though they sent that to me in the early days.

Thats all they have included in their bundle really, not much else except copies of N149A and N9B.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

which is why i said wait till monday to send yours......

 

yes scan it up to one multipage PDF

we dont need each exhibits cover sheet nor , if they have, the complete printout of any cases they refer too.

 

 

 

[Dave962]

Sorry DX I thought it needed to be in by Friday ideally.

 

But yeah gutted about that as it's utter tosh what they have done there.

 

Is there any chance I will get a chance to speak at the beginning of the case, just so I can throw these little pieces of info into the melting pot, before the judge casts his vote?

[dx100uk]

On 08/10/2020 at 11:15, dx100uk said:

i will try and read through today..

if your hearing is the 23rd then ideally yours should be at least with the court tomorrow

don't worry if you are a days or 2 late as i said before use your LiP status to your advantage.

 

i just hope you never gave anyone an email AD as simon will pull a fast one and email you at 1 min to midnight of the day its due.

full of lies that you cannot counter in your WS.

 

 

 

said it numerous times.............

 

don't worry you'll get plenty of chances to cross examine them, 

speak when spoken too, but don't let them railroad things, if you need to speak up, do so, the judge won't mine, but as i said, let them run through it first and in your turn high light the problems...i've not read it yet.

 

also just remember that whomever wrote theirs MUST be in court, else you immediately point this out, 

simon has a nasty habit of getting people to make up mostly hearsay evidence rubbish in the VCS WS then hoping defendants don't point out the important fact that they must be allowed to cross examine the person that wrote it face to face .

[brassnecked]

That works in your favour as DX says there is a chance if the judge has seen a few  VCS roboclaim cut & paste POC before, they might well chuck it out when you highlight author of WS not present.  Simple Simon just hopes he can get On The papers, or some local brief to wing it for him.

[Dave962]

Thanks DX, BN

 

See what you make of all this...

 

Claimants WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

What a load of old twaddle, 95% is just cut & pasted from the last one we saw.  I doubt the judge will be very impressed with pages & pages of guff describing their company and the great work they do that has SFA to do with the case.

 

Interesting that they warble on about bye-laws, even though the car park isn't covered by bye-laws.  I think that you can use this to your advantage if they actually do do court.  You arrive, you see no VCS sign but you do see a sign about bye-laws.  It's obvious you'd think the place was covered by bye-laws and you continued to think that for months.  Even VCS think the place is covered by bye-laws.  Yes, they've managed to even confuse themselves!

 

They "manage" the car park so well that they leave misleading signs around and even mislead themselves!

[brassnecked]

Yes another Simple Simon RoboClaim, with the usual cases chucked in, with beavis that is inapplicable to most cases as it turns on its own facts and is used to justify the Unicorn Food tax that got OPS a severe tolchocking in Lewes County Court. several things to chew their nuts off with, assuming they turn up to get their nuts chewed. off

[Dave962]

Does the electronic signature count for anything?

 

The only other things I have left out are my V5 document from the new car (sale date), and photographs from the parked car and N9B N149A forms. Thats everything.

 

[dx100uk]

no proof of annual payment by the managing agent since 2009!!??

[Dave962]

yes that’s all they have attached, no other exhibits.

yes I see what you mean there, why would they not have just sent their most recent agreement through?

Seems a bit random doesn’t it.

 

 

 

[dx100uk]

thread tidied

full claimant WS in post a few up

 

there is no proof the client has paid the contract since 2009.

they can't override your firms supremacy of contract 

they issued your permit

the fact you didn't have it on the day is totally immaterial.

 

the client who employed VCS manage the car park is the same entity that issued you with a permit to park there, 

therefore no claim.

[FTMDave]

Plus the signage is totally confusing.

[Dave962]

Thanks DX and Dave, all noted and much appreciated for taking the time to read through it. Seems a bit all over the place doesn't it. I just hope the judge can see through all their skullduggery too.

[lookinforinfo]

I have had a quick look at planning permission for signs to be erected in Woodside carpark

-they would come under Town and Country planning [advertisements] regulations 2007 and couldn't find any application or approval for them.

 

Without the signs their signs are there illegally [not unlawful -illegal so a criminal offence].

As such their signs should not be there and no contract can be formed by a criminal compact.

 

As they haven't admitted in their WS that they do have planning permission you can say that you believe they do not have it.  In addition, this would not be the first time they have not the necessary permissions which puts them in breach of their Code of Conduct and calls into question no 5 in their WS that they have full compliance with the Code.

 

It also calls into question whether they should be allowed to access DVLA records.

You should be able to bring this up since the VCS WS did not arrive until after you had sent your WS to the Court.

 

You could also add other cases where VCS have not complied with their AOS Code of Conduct  ie they have complied with all the Laws pertaining to parking. "VCS Court" cases may bring some up as may Parking Prankster v VCS .

 

It would help in as much as if you can shred that statement 5 in their WS it shoots down what they are trying to show. That is that they are the good guys, the ones that observe the Law as opposed to you who is not paying your debt to them. {It is a debt that you do not owe them but that has never stopped them in the past to pursue.]

 

The contract refers to Peel Holdings agreeing VCS to comply with the BPA Code of Conduct and the contract allows VCS to immobilise vehicles which is now against the Law. So there is no contract -it fails on three accounts -BPA, immobilisation and out of date since it was only valid for one year with no rollover option.

Also no mention of Peel Holdings agreeing to the amount charged to motorists who breached the T&Cs.

 

Of interest perhaps -https://uk.linkedin.com/in/nicola-dearden-883965143

states that she has been the property manager for Peel for 12 years, not David Smith as signed for on the contract.

 

 

[brassnecked]

Draw up a checklist to keep at hand of the points brought up against what is in their WS so you have it at hand as to  what question to ask to  get them to drop themseles in the do do with the rubbish WS and POC

[Dave962]

Thanks LFI and BN, some amazing pieces of information there, and I appreciate the depth at which you and everyone has looked into the matter.

 

I've got a couple of busy days the next couple of days, but after that, I have a few days off were I can really get stuck in, and draw up a checklist like you suggested.

 

Will I be cross examined by VCS on the day, will I need to be prepared for a raft of questions they may ask me too?

[brassnecked]

If no one turns up they can't ask questions, think the others might mention about whether the person they send has " Right of Audience" asd is actually allowed to speak, the others can expand on that, but the checklist is so you have a ready answer cross referenced to where they seek to challenge your WS, with other stuff in theirs.

[Dave962]

Thanks BN

 

Just checked, the court has received my papers now so that is good. Just thinking, do I need to send evidence of my proof of posting to the court, in advance of the court date to prove it was posted in good time? I'm just thinking in case there is some daft delay on the day due to this. I appreciate you have said many times I should be allowed a day or two grace.

[dx100uk]

no.

 

dx

 

[honeybee13]

As BN says, don't forget the Right of Audience thing at the beginning. You could shut them up from the outset.

 

HB

[Dave962]

I've been reading up  on the RoA, and just to be clear, does that mean then in my case, that basically Yasmeen Couser must be in attendance tomorrow? I take it if someone else is speaking on VCS behalf, then Yasmeen at least needs to be in attendance?