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

[ericsbrother]

the permit is an administrative convenience to prove you have the right to park there.

the parking co cannot take that right away but think if they threaten you with dire consequences of not paying

then you will pay up.

You owe nothing.

 

as for the IAs, their decision has encouraged the parking co to think they are in the right

so a brief denial to BW that their client has any right to claim any right to make a contract

and therefore as it doesn't exist there can be no breach of the said contract

and that any action will be vigorously defended as being vexatious.

[ericsbrother]

To try and answer your questions in a logical way,

 

how likely is it you will be taken to court?

More likely now you have spoken to BW and showed that you are a target.

 

How likely are they to get £280?

almost zero for a defended claim as they cannot justify any of the extra costs other than court fees,

which are £35 o a total of £135 and maybe £50 for the lawyers to turn up on the day so £185 tops.

 

How likely are they to win?

If you offer a proper defence then the answer to that is almost zero

as they havent followed the correct procedures and the signage is so rubbish it cannot constitute a contract.

 

Sorry to say but as you have made a stupid mistake on your contacts with them

the best thing to do is say nothing and do nothing.

 

 

Having an arrangement with your employer gives you what is called supremacy of contract

so even though the signage is rubbish it doesnt apply to you as you are above all of that.

 

 

There are loads of other bits to add to your defence should the need arise but for the moment do and say nothing.

 

 

You may get a lba or you may get a N1 from VCS but there are no certainties to either,

it depends on how stupid VCS are and what advice they take from BW on how gullible they think you are

and what money they want to possibly throw away when they lose (as they will).

 

If you do get an N1 we will advise how to defend,

there are agin procedures to be followed by both sides

but you can make it very difficult for them to provide the proof they have any rights to be at court

and often they pull out at the next stage just to cut their losses.

[ericsbrother]

where in the advice given does it suggest you dont have a leg to stand on?

Now, if this is a new letter tell us EXACTLY what it says, not your interpretation of it

as the wording is key to what to do next.

Post up the letter if possible without your personal details.

 

We are also still waiting to see the signage so we can comment on their content and likewise any of the NTK's or other letters you have received and the date you actually got them.

 

this is all about procedure, they have to follow a strict timescale and use of words and they often get this wrong.

When they do it means they cant claim (unless some twonk at the CAB advises you to give up your rights)

but in your case we believe that you have supremacy of contract

and if it comes to it that is the first thing to say in your defence.

 

However,

if this latest letter is a lba then we suggest that you do reply to create a paper trail

that will show that any court action is vex and you can them claim extra costs from them.

Edited June 13, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[ericsbrother]

well, the latest letter is just scare tactics and not worthy of a response

 

dig out the original demands and get a decent picture of the sign so we can formulate

something as a response when they write again.

 

From what I can read of the signs it isnt an offer of a contract

but need to see the small print (that in itself is a problem for them).

 

Also, where are the signs in relation to the entrance to the land/car park and how big are they?

 

lastly, who are Peel holdings Ltd

[ericsbrother]

Ideally,

if you can see who is calling to press the button to accept the call and place the handset next to your radio without saying a word to them.

They will soon get fed up of wasting their money.

 

I also sincerely hope the sign is the same as VCS are not members of the BPA so the sign isnt valid.

 

 

Might be worth a complaint to the DVLA copied to BPA if they want to continue regarding abouse of KADOE when they dont comply to the requirements of its access terms.

 

Also it looks like Peel Holdings ltd arent the landowner but a subsidiary of a management co based on the IOM.

 

 

They do own some properties so it is a possibility that there could be a valid contract between VCS and landowner but most likely isnt and that means they cant legally claim a penny via the courts (wont stop them trying though, they like to tell lies about this and sometimes judges dont know that they are being misled)

[ericsbrother]

block them and report as spammers to your service provider

[ericsbrother]

so they want you to pay their estimated costs before they actually incur them.

 

 

As you know, BW can say what they want but they are only paid to send out letters so if someone doesnt pay them more money they will just shut up.

 

If you want to respond a repeat of the

 

 

"A lack of contractual obligation makes your demands spurious, please refer back to your client and desist this harassment" will do.

 

 

They know the truth but want some free money.

[ericsbrother]

good, dont add anything else or they will think that you are awaverer and try and ramp up the pressure.

[ericsbrother]

How about tis-

Dear sirs, I am surprised that Simple Simon is wasting his money hiring the parking world's second worst solicitors to chase up a claim that both you and he knows is spurious.. Should you between you decide to take civil action I shall ask for a full costs recovery order as the claim is vex. I am also minded to sue VCS under Vidal Hall and others v Google  and VCS v Phillip Liverpool CC Dec 2016 as they have no justification for obtaining and processing my personal data.

 

That should hopefully have the desired effect, VCS havent used either Gladdys or BWL for a while preferring to lose defended claims off their own bat recently.

 

Now you need to prepare for court just in case they do carry on so start gathering evidence now

[ericsbrother]

there is a serious point you need to understand though,

we can advise but we cant stand next to you if they do want to try their luck and sue so you need to know what it is all about rather than relying on what others tell you.

 

this means reading up a lot about private parking and the law surrounding the issues people face and also learning about how the companies behave.

 

they have sent you a threatogram because they think after this time you have binned all of your paperwork.

 

Now the good news is that it would be a very rare occasion that they would actually show their faces in court just to receive an earwigging from a judge about abuses of procedure when they are just slapping in claims as a method of coercing you into paying when they know that there is no real cause for action, like in your case>

 

however, as the law stands they can do this as often as they want as long as they dont keep suing the same person and invite a charge of vexatious litigation.

 

you will find examples where people like Alex Shipp have tried their damndest to bait the parking co's to take them to court but all that happens is they then start to do a bit of quality control and whitelist certain people's car reg or address.

[ericsbrother]

you wont need a solicitor, you would struggle to find one that knows about parking law as a specific topic so you are better off learning for yourself.

 

Now my thoughts are on whether they want to pay BWL to lose for them or cut their losses.

 

Look up champerty and maintenance as we believe that the practices of Gladstones and BWL in offering a type of no win no fee arrangement may well risk crossing that line if for example this letter was sent out without the express instruction of VCS

[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

 

[ericsbrother]

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

keep it short and brutal

[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

[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

[ericsbrother]

the principles of contracts are the same, if parking is limited to those who have a permit and the sigange doesnt offer separate terms for others then the signage is prohibitive in nature and the  monies demanded is an unlawful penalty.

 

so a sign saying permit holders accept ther following conditons and all other pay £60 to park si OK, but permit holders only the prevents anyone else being offered terms to aprk so there is no performance of contract by VCS because they cant and arent offering you anything.

 

It is like me sending you a letter containing a demand for £100 for tearing my envelope!

[ericsbrother]

that sign is giving you 2 points to beat them with,

 

firstly it is a harbour covered by its own byelaws 

 

secondly that menas the offer by VCS is trumped by the conditions displayed on that sign

( and the byelaws they enforce. )

 

For the latter is it performance of contract that gives VCS the bums rush, they cnat actually give you naything so you arent bound bto accept their offer.

 

You will need the piccie of the sign to support both of these points.

the content of that sign makes it clear that parking is offered to a limited group of people and anyone else is a trespasser and may suffer the penalties laid out in the byelaws.

 

VCS have no say in that and cant claim that their offer to demand £100 is somehow a benefit that is supplementary to the law, it isnt, it is just an unlawfu penalty charge and unenforceable.

Look at Dunlop v Selfridge

[ericsbrother]

cant use your car insurance legal cover because you didnt involve them at the very beginning.

You might be able to use them for suing VCS afer this for the breach of the GDPR though

[ericsbrother]

the babelfish translator regurgitates this offer as " pease agree to pay us somehting or we will have paid out a lot of money fro nothing as we know we cant win"