VCS ANPR 2015 PCN claimform - Berkeley Centre Sheffield S11 8PN ***Claim Discontinued***

[brassnecked]

Driver And/Or Keeper has to be one or the other, if keeper then their £54 is an unlawful charge,

[brassnecked]

We can assume that its unlikely there is  any Planning permission for the cameras, especially if they are on their own poles.

[brassnecked]

Must satisfy POFA if they want to ground Keeper Liability, so no Keeper liability, their RoboClaims always try to sue both as if they can jointly and severally, but the Courts should be looking at the was Driver or Keeper and chuck the claim out for being vague, but they don't  They might if POFA fails and they know they are onto a loser, might have a last gasp and try to rely on Elliott v Loake a criminal case so not applicable to a Civil claim, and CPS v AJH Films, again not applicable as is about employer/employee, they will do this to try to get someone to cough up before a case they know they are going to lose to salvage what they have already paid ou to go to court.  I would delete the  line

 

As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline as is my right to name the driver (s) at this time" 

That is an oblique reference to the duty to name driver in a Criminal case, and is the Elloitt v Loake scenario.

 

Others will have better ideas, but lloking decent.

[brassnecked]

less is moe at this stage, gives the PPC no wriggle room after they stick in a RoboClaim WS.

[brassnecked]

Might be asking locl press if people are complaining about getting charged for overstaying whilst waiting to exit the carpark due to traffic, as the 1 hour allowed isn't long enough to enter park shop and depart.

[brassnecked]

They do tend to give some leeway to Litigants in Person, so should be OK.

[brassnecked]

I think VCS would drop the case when they realised how much they would end up paying out when their dodgy POC was challenged and the loss from all those costs they might have to pay due to a non UK Driver popping over to court.

[brassnecked]

half of it will be blather and rubbish dancing around what is Law, what is permissable, and trying to paste over their case shortcomings.

[brassnecked]

No post it up, as if that is the contract they sent, that is the one they are relying on to sue. Instead of lie say that the claimant misrepresented  something.

[brassnecked]

If cases have similarity no locus, no contract etc doesn't matter which PPC it is .

[brassnecked]

just needs a few more of Simple Simon's vex claims, and hopefully the courts will finally catch on to his manipulation of the system, and other naughties.

[brassnecked]

Retention of your data beyond an unsuccessful attempt to fleece you is likely a breach of GDPR, but as you say, that's for another day.

[brassnecked]

Looks good, might have made a bit more of the Debt Collection fee of £60 only being applicable to the driver, and that the keeper cannot be sued for that element of any claim, and they are on strict proof to prove the driver is the keeper.

[brassnecked]

Ericsbrother might have a few points where to improve and where to cut, but its looking OK

[brassnecked]

In point 4 Elliott V loake as is Criminal is NOT applicable to a civil case, as there is a duty to name the driver in a criminal case as it can get the keeper a fine and 6 points for failing to do so, nothing at all to compel in a Civil case.  In fact PPC's have lost on this point by being told the case is inapplicable details on prankster site

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/10/excel-parking-youve-been-gladstoned.html

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

[brassnecked]

Erics brother has cleared that one up, so follow his advice to get the right to speak, will make a big difference to be able to challenge the Claimant's case at a hearing.

[brassnecked]

FTMDave is correct, the whole system is seriously twisted, and the likes of Simple Simon misuse the County Court as a pressure to force a payment that should never be due, until enough cases are chucked out and maybe Simple is brave enough to try an appeal, and gets tolchocked in a higher Court and it becomes precedent, he and others will carry on. You have put a great deal of effort in and have a very strong case. Its dot those i's and cross those t's time.

[brassnecked]

Don't think he would unless he wrote and signed it, EB will know for sure check up and review what he said about rights of audience.

[brassnecked]

Might be a very lean time for the PPC's if less people are parking, and they won't get much joy if army vehicles are being used and are getting double dipped by Simple Simon.  Just waiting for him to invoice a police car like UKPS did to Devon & Cornwall Police on a shout.

 

I can't seer how the County Courts can operate apart from undefended defaults going through Northampton. but as FTMDave says be prepared.

[brassnecked]

That is a good point RichieBoy56, look for the duration in any contract they claim to have, it might just be the clincher if they cant prove it is still in force.

[brassnecked]

Absolutely brilliant. Yes I think that defence killed his pig for him, 7 minutes, 3 minutes less than minimum grace, he didn't want to lose and cough up costs etc.

 

[brassnecked]

Just phone the court to be doubly sure, and tell them VCS has sent a letter, he has been known to renage on a discontinuance.

[brassnecked]

 Your comprehensive  WS and rebuttal of his rubbish POC and WS made him wet himself and bail as ericsbrother says, he has lost enough No Stopping where ByeLaws are in force cases, for him to not want to lose any more that are defended. 

Must be some GDPR breach in there by conflating VCS and Excel, would be nice for him to get clobbered and the bailiffs fetch up to evict him from that mansion to pay the fines from Data Commissioner.  Well we can dream.  Feel like borrowing a mates Mobility Scooter and ride it up the LJA Access road stop and look at the no stopping  signs, see if the spycar guy comes after me.

[brassnecked]

Yes, but Simple Simon might claim his SpyCar is exempt as it is being used to help prevent terrorism as that pesky car stopping might contain a myopic 102 year old intent on destroying his sign.

[brassnecked]

Agree with HB, you would be a really good asset you made that case as well if not better than many a paralegal

 

"Just my notes but based on the Claimant's statement, and VCS seem to use the same statement and the same evidence for all similar cases"

 

Thats why we refer to such claims as RoboClaims.they chuck 'em in to Northampton like confetti at a wedding and hope peoplecough up rather than defend.  When someone does like you put in a robust defence they are snookered, and its better to drop the claim than have DJ's see too many similar POC's and cases from fleecers tested in court.