VCS PCN Claimform - Broomfield Developements Broomspring Close. S37XA ***Claim Dismissed***

[Geocyper]

Hi shamrocker, yes I did I tailored it around mine but kept most of your structure and points, thanks for copy you sent, all the points were relevant to my case.

 

Thanks again.

 

[Geocyper]

Hi all, I have just noticed I have forgot to attach copy off CPR 31.14 Request in my bundle, can I just send a copy to VCS and court ASAP?
 

Thanks.

 

 

[shamrocker]

What was provided as part of the CPR response that's crucial to your defence?

[Geocyper]

Hi shamrocker, sorry not got back to you, I had to reset my account someone trying to login to it.

 

Hi nothing, they never replied to it within the 14 days.  I forgot to put the original request in my bundle.

 

Thanks.

[shamrocker]

I wouldn't worry. It's not critical.

[Geocyper]

Hi All,

 

Wrote to Fairways for information on Permit parking some time ago.  Seems more than one management company here.

 

I got this letter Friday.  Its all seems rubbish to me, court date Thursday, any help with contents would be helpful.

 

Thanks GY

Permit Scheme. copy.pdf

[brassnecked]

The management Company have misunderstood the law also referring to Fines and Penalty Charge Notices. which VCS cannot lawfully impose, the PPC equivalent is a Parking Charge Notice. don't know if that letter is of use, but perhaps ericsbrother and lookedinforinfo will have some thoughts.

[Geocyper]

Hi thanks brassnecked for your reply.

[Geocyper]

Hi lookinforinfo, with regards to your post 126.  Are you saying that VCS WS is misleading, even although I got the PCN within 14 day period?

 

That this is what I should raise with Judge?
 

Also they say a PCN Placed on car, (it was just a card) surely under POFA If they are claiming keeper liability, the must wait 28 days before NTK, am I right?
 

They are not using POFA, but claiming they are complying with it, I’m a bit confused.
 

Thanks.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Geocyper
Bad grammar.

[shamrocker]

How have you concluded that they are not relying on POFA?

[Geocyper]

Hi shamrocker, it’s not mentioned in any documents, in their witness statement etc.

 

If you look at their WS, 39 to 41, my reading is they are not relying on POFA, but claim to be compliant with it, at no time do they state that under POFA 2012 schedule 4, they are claiming to transfer driver liability to the keeper.

 

I may be wrong.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Geocyper

[Geocyper]

Also there was no Notice to the driver placed on car.

 

Thanks.

[shamrocker]

p.37 refers to legal remedies being available to hold the keeper liable. p.41 states that their position is that they can hold the registered keeper liable.

 

I'd say that's pretty conclusive that they are relying on POFA.

 

Regards the notice to driver - they mention in their WS that this was issued and that evidence of such is exhibited. What have they disclosed in relation to this?

Edited October 20, 2019 by shamrocker

[shamrocker]

4 hours ago, Geocyper said:

Hi lookinforinfo, with regards to your post 126.  Are you saying that VCS WS is misleading, even although I got the PCN within 14 day period?

 

That this is what I should raise with Judge?
 

Also they say a PCN Placed on car, (it was just a card) surely under POFA If they are claiming keeper liability, the must wait 28 days before NTK, am I right?
 

They are not using POFA, but claiming they are complying with it, I’m a bit confused.
 

Thanks.

 

You are onto something here... POFA s.4 states:

 

"6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8...

 

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met....
 

(4)The notice must be given by—
(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or
(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.
(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given."

 

In the Claimant's WS, from para 54 onwards, they refer to p.9 of POFA regarding the issuing of the notice to the Keeper. They're relying on the wrong paragraph because, as they've issued a notice to driver, they should be relying on p.8, as I've quoted above. The notice to keeper can then only be issued once 28 days have passed. They're stating that it's 14 days, and that they have done this in your case.

 

Did you include POFA as a WS exhibit?

Edited October 20, 2019 by shamrocker

[Geocyper]

shamrocker, yes i did.  I included the whole POFA 2012 Schedule 4 in the pack, and the card that was placed on windscreen.

 

CY

[shamrocker]

Ok, that's good. Did you say the hearing is this Thursday?

[Geocyper]

Yes it’s on Thursday.  I will contact you on here tomorrow if that’s ok, I’m a bit tired now, some more points I need you to look at on witness statement theirs,

 

They have not included any evidence of windscreen ticket in their witness bundle just mentioned a card informing the driver that a a breach of the terms and conditions MAY have occurred, 61 in their witness statements.   Where in POFA does it say they can do that to comply? Rhetorical

 

Thanks.
 

 

[shamrocker]

"...inviting them to take appropriate action."

 

I think they refer to p.22. It's all a bit shambolic really.

 

[ericsbrother]

the letter sent out by the developers talks about VCS issuing "penalty fines" and "penalty charges".

Now does that mean that VCS have been instructed to break the law?

 

the thing about the card not being a NTD is a wheeze invented by Gladstones/IPC and hasnt been tested in court.

 

As said, that would require a copy of Hansard for the Bill's final reading as it was enacted so the intent of parliament can be seen.

 

You will need to hope that your expanation of the slight of hand by VCS to the judge is accepted but I must admit that I am not clear exactly where you car was parked ( yes I know the overall address) and whether it was actually private land or the roadway that was already existing when this development was built.

 

Now the council can unadopt a highway ( usually temporarily) so that is somehting else you will need to be able to answer with some conviction, they will tell lies or possibly say fairview told them that they could march all over everywhere so it must be true.

We have seen cases where the judge has looked at public land with illegal signs on as still offering a contract!

[Geocyper]

Ok, thanks for that ericsbrother , I can only try, the hearing is Thursday.

 

The other thing that is eating at me is this.

 
The contract in their Witness Statements still says they can clamp and tow cars away, now I know that this contract was signed in 2012, when this behaviour was still legal on private land.

 

The PCN issued 2015, but they think it’s ok to have this clause still in contract today 2019.  Am I missing something.

 

In their particulars of claim, they have the car parked in same neighbourhood, but different “post code” to where car was reported to have committed alleged transgression.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

These issues are not my only argument but part off, just trying to get it right in my head.. stressful.

[shamrocker]

Just stick to concentrating on the key points that will defeat their claim. Have you started with drafting up these points so you can go through them at the hearing?

[lookinforinfo]

I would be inclined to rip their WS apart. That way, I doubt that VCS would wish to proceed to Court. 

In paragraph 5 VCS claim they have full compliance with their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement and Private Land. Really? Can this be the same VCS that was issuing PCNs between 2013 and 2017 knowing that the signage there had not been agreed by Liverpool council and therefore the signage was illegal. Here is an open letter from the Parking Prank

 

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

An open letter to Simon Renshaw Smith of VCS parking regarding Liverpool John Lennon Airport

 

19/11/2013

Dear Mr Renshaw Smith,

 

I wish to draw your attention to the procedural impropriety in your operational activities on the approach roads within Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

 

You are actively operating under contract to issue civil penalty tickets (PCN’s) for traffic offences on the roads such as stopping at the roadside, whether for seconds, minutes or even longer, or for parking on the roadside verges.

 

You are doing so based on an allegation of contractual agreement for a breach of parking conditions and are actively sending out a notice to keeper in each case where you ask for the name and address of the driver. You are doing this under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

As you are no doubt aware, due to your many years of experience in emptying people’s wallets, where land is governed by byelaws the remedy for any breach of conditions of those byelaws is through the criminal courts, such as a magistrates.

 

Not only that, since the byelaws set an amount of penalty for failure to comply with them; a further amount based on your own assessment is unlawful at best and perhaps even fraudulent.

 

A set of the byelaws for the Liverpool Airport have now been obtained from a reliable source, Liverpool City Council,  which sets out the airport’s stance on roadway use, or misuse. It also lays down a penalty upon summary conviction for a breach of the byelaws of £5 for the 1^st offence and a further amount of 40 shillings for a continued daily breach.

 

I put it to you that these byelaws govern the airport’s penalty regime for the alleged contraventions you are enforcing. In fact there is no penalty for stopping at the roadside. There is no offence committed so there can be no penalty unless it can be proven in a magistrate’s court that this action amounted to a failure under para 14: “Driving or placing a vehicle carelessly or dangerously or without due consideration for persons using the airport”

 

Para 18 gives notice that a “failure by the driver of a vehicle to comply with any direction for the regulation of traffic given by a constable or any person acting on behalf of the council or a traffic sign” will be subject to the penalty regime of the aforementioned £5 plus 40 shillings per day afterwards.

 

The mention of the traffic signs and the council's part in the overall monitoring means that the signs must be compliant to the TSRGD which are those shown for the public highways; not the ones arbitrarily stuck at the roadside by yourself which are meaningless in the context of the legal status of the byelaws.

 

Furthermore, POFA 2012 3(1)(c) states that Schedule 4 only applies on land on which the parking of a vehicle is not subject to a statutory control. It further states (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

 

The byelaws state at para 2.19 that the following act is prohibited.

"parking a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose."

The penalty for this is a fine not exceeding five pounds.

 

POFA 2012 therefore does not apply, and you may therefore only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. Moreover, you may only pursue them for the sum of five pounds.

 

Knowingly pursuing the registered keeper when POFA 2012 is an offence which the DVLA take extremely seriously and may ban you from access. The BPA wrote to you in their electronic newsletter this month reiterating this.

 

I put it to you, Mr Renshaw Smith, that your company is operating unlawfully at the Liverpool Airport site and ask what you intend to do since this has now been brought to your notice.

 

May I remind you that since this is an unlawful operation, you may well be required at some later time to recompense the amounts of the PCN’s already paid by drivers, and perhaps face tough questions in a court of law, not just a civil court.

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Stopping Briefly At the Roadside

 

The Parking Prankster

 

The Prankster would like to thank his source for the above

 

I am sure that you will find other examples of VCS not complying with Code of Conduct or the Law.

 

And of course VCS do not have the ability to take you to Court because you were a trespasser and only the land owner can take a trespasser to Court.

 

 

 

 

 

[Geocyper]

Hi shamrocker, I have done my paperwork.

 

I have done separate point documents for .

 

1. Contract.

2. Signage.

3. General Points Witness statement (Theirs).

 

Thanks lookinforinfo,  I will print it out and try and show to Judge.

[shamrocker]

I would suggest posting a copy up here ASAP. Don't go into great detail though.

[shamrocker]

16 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

I would be inclined to rip their WS apart. That way, I doubt that VCS would wish to proceed to Court. 

 

The hearing is on Thursday though.