Jump to content



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


Recommended Posts

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Go as per DX use what EB suggests as a guide, along the lines of you had no legitimate claim 3 years ago, i haven't and you, I and BW legal know this, and I haven't forgotten, sure EB will call in and

not being funny dave you've been here since 2016   more than enough time to realise cag is also a self help forum and we have a very good custom google search box on the left after clic

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.. Sho

Good analogy that EB thank you.

 

Do you know if the Court process is still running as normal at the moment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi again all

 

20th April is not too far away now, is it time I started shaping up a defence now do you think?

 

I have not had anything back from VCS as far as I am aware.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your last try is not too far off the mark?

 

did you check if this area is covered by port byelaws?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, cover yourself by keeping to the deadlines.

 

There are lots of other VCS claimform threads here.  However, in particular look at what EB pointed out in posts 3 & 76, do a draft based around those points and post it up here.  As usual Simon has not bothered to reply to the CPR so use that too.  A defence can be very brief.  After we will suggest some tweaking.  Then you can send it off on the 20 to show Simon he will have a fight on his dishonest hands.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX/Dave

 

I've not confirmed the area is covered by bye laws, however, there is an old sign at the entrance to the car park, hidden beneath the trees saying "No Parking permit holders only. Vehicles not displaying permits are liable to prosecution and removal MDHC (Mersey Docks and Harbour Company) By Laws".

 

As I say this is a far older sign than the newer red ones scattered about the place.

 

However, this is the sign that greets you at the entrance, the newer red one is only placed on the building walls. Its just this old one is far more discreet.

 

Anyway, would this confirm the answer to your question, or would I need more evidence?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

well found

that confirms its a byelaw area then.

 

so have a look at the no stopping claimform threads

use our search top right

 

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a pic of the Mersey Docks sign and indicate where it is in relation to the other entrance signs, will be handy later if Simple Simon is persistent.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DX/BN

 

Thanks I’ll take a look at the no stopping threads, and wrt to the photo, is this something I send through soon with my defence as part of the evidence?

 

I had a look at the form and I can’t see if it states to send additional evidence through?

 

Ive got a map of the car park though that VCS sent through, indicating the more populated newer red signs. I’ll print a copy off and insert the other older sign onto it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If VCS continue with their claim you will have to produce two pieces of documentation.  One is your defence , on the 20th, which need be only a brief list of bullet points.

 

Later on, before the court case, you will need to produce a much more detailed Witness Statement with all the documentation you will rely on in court.

 

So to answer your question, no, you don't send the picture with your defence (but you will need it later in your Witness Statement).

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone. I've had a look at all the links like you have suggested which have been very helpful. 

 

Just having another look at the defence, it looks to me like these two are the most relevant, and particularly para 2.

 

Wrt to para 3, I've just noticed that on the map of the car park they sent through, with positions of signage on, it is quite clear they have nothing marked at the entrance to the car park, however, they are falsely indicating a sign, close to the old MDHC one. The MDHC one is the one and only sign that greets you at the entrance, however it seems to me that on the mappings, they have tried to manipulate that sign into one of the newer red ones, because there is no red sign in the vicinity of the MDHC one. Seems a bit sneaky by VCS so would this count in my favour?

 

This is the defence which seems most relevant to me...

 

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, VCS was simply contracted by the landowner, MDHC 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 the VCS signage could only be viewed after parking my car..

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of what you've written is OK, but you really need to hammer home the points about bye-laws and prohibition.

 

Have a look at post 76    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419527-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport-castle-donnington/page/4/#comments  and post 59  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417985-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-london-southend-airport/page/3/#comments

 

Tweak the best of what these two have written and then please post a revised defence up here before you send it in.

 

 

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave

 

I've had a good look at those two, as well as VCS ANPR PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield, S11 8PN ***Claim Dismissed*** Post 36.

 

I hope it's ok, but if not please let me know and I will redo. 

 

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

 

2. The land is covered by its own byelaws so not "relevant land" under the POFA. The byelaws create a supremacy of contract over VCS signage so no liability created.

 

3. 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.

 

4. The claimant has no locus standi.

 

5. 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 the VCS signage could only be viewed after parking my car. The only signage greeting me at the entrance to the car park was that of MDHC (Bye Laws).

 

In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without basis, and the Claimant has no right to pursue said claim. The charge is unconscionable and relies upon a misleading business practice as described above and the attempt to add a further sum in 'damages' that a private parking firm is not entitled to collect, is a clear abuse of process. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

registered keeper...

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much, much better.  However, points 3 & 4 are the same thing, stick them together.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX/Dave

 

I'll flash that over.

 

I take it I can do this on the MCOL website? I'll take a look at it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just copy n paste

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they have 28 days...

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

as you've probably read you should get notice from the court its been served on the claimant, they have 28 days (after 5 days for service..like you had with the claimform)

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s -  would collapse overnight.

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs - that's why they will never tell you they are not bailiffs and have absolutely zero legal powers on any debt.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok great thanks DX, so potentially late May at the latest, I didn't take the extra 5 days into consideration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received Notice of Proposed Allocation to the small Claims Track. I must complete N180 by 11th May...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...