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

[dx100uk]

they have said no witnesses so...

 

dx

 

[Dave962]

Thanks DX

 

Is that electronic signature a load of tosh or is that permitted?

[dx100uk]

i believe we have already covered this have we not?

no proof of what PC was used or where it was?? void of IP Address wasn't it?

[Dave962]

Thanks DX. I honestly don't remember that bit, though I don't doubt you are wrong.

[dx100uk]

read the thread again??
 

dx

 

[Dave962]

Oh man alive Im running on empty now though. I need to get to bed. I'll get up early and give my Q&A one last polish.

[Dave962]

Morning all

 

Is it possible to reference a case, even if I have no mentioned in my WS?

[FTMDave]

You're supposed to only refer to your WS, but you can try, the judge might stop you, nothing ventured ...

[Dave962]

Thanks Dave, its from the OPS case earlier this year. I never referenced it, but I'll try and crow bar it in if I can.

[honeybee13]

As Dave says, you might get away with it as your an LiP. You have nothing to lose by asking.

 

HB

[Dave962]

Thanks HB, I'll give it a blast, the more ammo the better!

 

Ive just checked with the court too, they have confirmed that my amended signage map has been included in the bundle, so that is a huge relief.

[Dave962]

Well that was an anticlimax.

 

the case has been adjourned due to the Judge believing the 1 hour time slot allocated is not enough time. He’s going to reschedule with a 3.5 hr slot some time soon.

 

I asked the Judge if the claimant for their name and if they had the right of audience, to which I was told that it was the Secretary representing VCS, and a Barrister, so therefore yes they did.

 

The judge made a point the my defence is so meaty, this was the reason for the extra time required. 
 

The Secretary seemed quite cocky, and I got the impression he felt he had a strong case.

 

he made a quick reference to Britania and abuse of process, but can’t remember what he said it was all a blur. I think he made some quick quip about the byelaws too.

 

The judge stressed most these cases usually don’t need more than an hour, but this was deffo an exception.

 

 

[dx100uk]

you mean you WS.

 

you should have recorded it dave.

 

dx

 

[Dave962]

Yeah your right I’ve thought that too. Sorry yes WS

 

is it normal for VCS to roll out the Secretary?

Edited October 23, 2020 by Dave962

[dx100uk]

that's immaterial.

 i was more thinking they'd actual paid for a barrister??

[Dave962]

Well thats what I thought they'd done?

 

As you can see it was way over my head! Im sure the judge said he was a Barrister though? I'm totally confused. They didn't give me a name.

 

Out of interest, if they now allocate me a 3.5 hr slot, and a 2nd court date, have my court costs just shot through the roof? 

[AndyOrch]

No....

[FTMDave]

Thanks for reporting back.

 

It's been a long time since anyone has been involved in a proper court case so it's important for others to find out what the PPCs are up to (it's a lot more common for them to start court claims to try to frighten the motorist or to get a default judgement, then after the WS they either discontinue or don't bother turning up).

 

Good to know they shelved out money for a barrister, cash they'll never get back!

[Dave962]

Thanks Dave, appreciate that information.

 

Yeah as you say that’s good news with the Barrister they must have had to pay top dollar there mustn’t they. 
 

Do you think there is any particular reason they are taking this one a bit more serious? I can’t think whether this is a good or bad thing?

 

Do you think Peel Ports or Holdings or whoever from Peel, have taken more involvement in this too? I wonder if they have rolled out the big guns for a reason.

 

Cant say going toe to toe with a Barrister fills me with confidence might be a tad out of my depth there!

 

Ah well if all else fails like you say it must be costing them a few Bob now...as long as I don’t end up forking out for his hourly rate. I won’t will I???

[dx100uk]

no costs are limited in small claims.

 

it puzzles me too as TBH its a pretty slam dunk win for you 

you are employed to do your job

your employer issues the passes.

your employer to all intend employs VCS to manage parking

you simply forget it your pass.

 

that site can't be much of a money earner for them anyway..

so why throw money at proving their mite??

 

puzzles me no end.

 

unless ofcourse they are still getting their knickers crossed that its another byelaws case....

 

 

 

 

[Dave962]

Thanks DX, I appreciate the reassurance about my case too.

 

I take it I’m gonna be up against it now tho? Even if I have a strong case like you say, I don’t fancy my chances much against someone as high as a Barrister, especially for 3.5 hours.

[dx100uk]

why..doesn't matter who presents their case

if it's a lemon case its a lemon case for them no matter what money they throw at it.

 

the judge has made it 3.5hrs (poss) because of all the irrelevant crap VCS have introduced.

IMHO its a very simple case as i explained before.

 

its that your interpretation of the basic facts...

 

[brassnecked]

The Judge might enjoy forensically dissecting VCS case and the Barrister.  We don't know for sure whether that Judge has had some VCS shenanigans in court before.

[Dave962]

Thanks DX and BN.

 

He did keep saying he’s done loads of parking cases in the past, over the 10 years he’d been doing it, so as you say he’s bound to have come across VCS stuff before isn’t he.

 

hopefully that’s the case then he just wants to go through it in a bit more detail. Either way you have given me a lot more confidence again now thanks.

[lookinforinfo]

With regard to your question on post 207 if you bring in the points that I made on the validity of the contract they are supposed to have with Peel holdings then mention that there are already doubts about the validity of the contracts that are being used by the PPCs and the OPS is a classic example. Once you are on there you should then try and get your other point in after that.

 

if it is in connection with the extra charge of £60 remind the Judge that the charge has been defined by many Court across England that the charge is an abuse of process which was covered in PE v Beavis at point 198 

 

" The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme"  IE the £100 charge covers all their expenses so nothing should be added.

 

as their WS claims an extra £60 that could be judged as perjurious since it is an additional sum that should be known by VCS and the author of the WS as a double recovery. Especially as they have already lost in Court for the same reason.

 

Another cause to prove that they do not comply with their Code of Conduct.

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/CamScanner%2008-05-2020%2016.34.59.pdf

 Byelaws are statutory not arbitrary as their WS said on no .42 .

 

Best of Luck.

 

The above URL does not work but this one does

http://forums.National Consumer Service.com/index.php?showtopic=133001 

 

[20.1 is where  VCS  lost then 20.2 where they appealed and lost again .

But read the whole thread as it may help you in other ways too.