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

[ericsbrother]

should be on the planning portal. If it isnt then ask the council planning dept to look into whether consetn was applied for. This is specifically for the parking signs and cameras. not CCTV or signs for the shopping centre itself

[ericsbrother]

the registered keeper can be liable IF certain conditions are met and IPC members like VCS dont even try to get it right, they just tell lies later on to make up for it.

You dont admit being the driver and that may be enough to win if the judge is a stickler for the letter of the law. most know about the POFA but you still need to show that you are relying on it and what part and why

[ericsbrother]

the keeper and driver are not legally the same person.

They have a contract with the driver and only the driver but they can create a keeper liabilty if they cant identify the driver (nothing to do with blurry pictures if is about admission of liability by someone)  but DO follow the procedure.

 

they havent followed the procedure and their court claim purposely tries to conflate the driver to keeper and vice versa.

Dont fall for it and NEVER presume anything, rely only on facts

 

If your daughter was caught on camera with a sign saying I am the keeper that isnt good enough to identify the driver as they still have to contact the DVLA for the data as they dont know the names of 65 million people or what they look like, let alone where they live. Even then the driver may be trying to mislead the parking co.

 

At my local supermarket I drive in the exit and out of the entrance to fool the cameras and it works!

[ericsbrother]

on point 3 I would be careful mentioning yourself at all, just stick to the POFA bit about VCS not having created a keeper liability unless you are going to deny being the driver at the time.

 

where you say they have failed to respond to a CPR 31.14 you can state that you therefore believe they do not have the necessary contract/permission etc but no need to repeat the fact they didnt respond or waht time they get it as they are not actually obliged to respond ( though it can damage their claimby not doing so), put that in once and when you get to the next point just say

 

ALSO

same goes for the 12+2 days, no need to mention Royal mail as no-one is forced to use the post, they copuld employ a process server so you are adding unnecessary text

 

Just makes it easier to read and get the points across

[ericsbrother]

you are only making bullet point to show thatyou have a reaosn for not paying/defending the claim.

All of the detail is for later

so to that end drop any personal reference s like I did this or that and just stae the facts liek "at the time they had no planning permission for their signage and it is not possible to enter into a criminal compact

 

 for point 3 you dont ask the court to do anything, they cant at this stage. Now here would be a good place to deny being the driver at the time unless you have already identified yourself as such

[ericsbrother]

and how can it annoy the vendor many years after the event?

 

stop reading things into documents that isnt there and follow the paths of the advice given.

 

For example,

do the signs that form the contract say VCS or Excel?

they are 2 different companies but they treat them as being the same when they arent.

 

You need to hammer this sort of thing home so therefore VCS has no LOCUS STANDI at amy of the palces they issue tickets and court claims and then they lie about it.

 

Your job is to shine a light on those lies rather than worry abotu a condition that was to apply to the demolition crew of what was there before the development was built

 

[ericsbrother]

11 hours ago, anniebattlemum said:

Actually there must have been more than 1 application to the DVLA since my daughter changed addresses several times and the correspondence followed her.

dont guess, when daughter has the details of who and when she will know exactly what the answer is. they wont be accessing the datails several times. stick to facts, not assumption

[ericsbrother]

look for any court cases from this time for the same site and see what they say and if possible use their images and other evidence for your case. You may well be able to get the judge to accept the previous cases as being persuasive if you are arguing over the quality and wording fo signs.

 

Dont vely on VCS producing images of their signs, most parking cos' use computer mock ups in court and tell the judge that is what is there rather than showing real pictures form 2015. they are the enemy, they are not going to help you.

 

However, you will have your own pictures of what is there now ( you better have) and if their piccies are the same you challenge the veracity of their evidence again relying on other cases that show different signs.

 

trawl through all of the motoring forums to dig up anything you can and use it.

 

Copy it and file it with your other stuff, if it is rejected then so be it but better that than not try.

Anything on other forums is public domain so no need to worry about whether the material itself is good enough or admissible,, it is just whether it fits in with your defence and that is where the vagueness of the original outline defence helps you

[ericsbrother]

what is the letter and who from?

the blank N180 is easy to fill in, no to mediation and fill in any dates she is not available. If the letter is from the fleecers mouthpiece asking for a hearing on the papers do not react to it but send a short note with the allocation questionnaire saying that she would wish to cross examine their witnesses so a paper hearing not applicable.

She should not respond to anything from the solicitors at this stage unless they are offering her money for their clients breach of the GDPR!

[ericsbrother]

On 03/08/2019 at 22:38, anniebattlemum said:

 So it's from the court and is a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track and a questionnaire about mediation, which we'll decline, whether she wants to have witnesses etc. it has to be submitted by 15th. I don't think there are any witnesses as she has denied being the driver.

Is anyone going to cough up to being the driver? If so they may well want to be a witness. A distant relative in Spain maybe, that will ramp up the expenses claim and make it very unlikely VCS will want to start all over again to sue them.

[ericsbrother]

US and S America not as good as in the EU, you cant serve legal docs on them so they still have keeper liability to rely on if they got everything else right ( no chance) but it might be interesteing for a costs order though.

 

You can put the witnesses name down still if you want to run with this one. Big risk but people who live and work abroad have been awarded large sums for coming back to defend a claima nd then go and visit relatives afterwards (never before or it may be argued that was a purpose of the visit to the UK).

[ericsbrother]

like all things in court though, you will have to push this point to get the WS discarded from their evidence bundle.

 

Now VCS used to use Gladdys but got fed up of losing even more money than they could lose on their own so took on the claims process themselves.

 

I am uncertain as to who pitches up, they may well just hire a local solicitor to go through the stuff if they have several running at the same court.

 

Worth chaecking the daily list once you have a time allocated so you are at least forewarned.

 

It has happened that a judge has make a determination in VCS favour and then has to do an about turn when your provide a more solid defence so try and resist a request to have the claims bunched together unless your is the first one in the queue

[ericsbrother]

you dont know who the claimants rep is yet but if it is just a solicitr then they cant answer questions about someone else's writing so you can say that as the person who wrote it isnt present you cant cross examine them so ask for it to be struck out. the judge might say yes or they might say no but if the latter then you will need to rubbish it and object if the solicitor tries to "explain" things other than law.

[ericsbrother]

the defendant has to be there Either that or send a solicitor and guarantee a lost case. Either side may use a lay representative to help them present but that rep cant answer questions either

Stop jumping ahead of yourself

[ericsbrother]

so time for things to creak into action yet.

dont rely on it but welcome it if somehting does come up to help

[ericsbrother]

signage can stay for soemthing like 6 months before it is consdered dead.

Now google the cmpany and find out where they are now, also look them up at companies house

[ericsbrother]

wont be back then, the govt guidelines have changed multiple times over the years so it really only appears about 20 years ago.

 

Now when a landlord employes an agent they only hand over certain rights to that agent so the contract they had with their agents will decide whether the agent could sign up the parking cowboys at all, let alone give them the right to sue the hapless public.

 

Problem is that judges will take it as read that the LL has assigned all rights to the agent whether there is any evidence of this or not as YOU have to disprove VCS's sad tale.

 

That is a reverse of what the law is supposed to do regarding proof of claim but what the hell, the supreme court has gone that way recently so dont expect a lower court to just say there is no contract because they havent produced one.

 

It does happen and should happen but not as common as it should be.

[ericsbrother]

that last comment is a common one, they arent covered by deemed consent but the planning depts dont ahve the money to chase every sign down and forec its removal and there are no penalties for breaking ther law other then removal

[ericsbrother]

read up on agency. the agent isnt going to reply to you so you have to get the judge to amke an issue of this lack of a contract with the landowner and thus the breaking of the chain of authrity between them and VCS

use anything you can find, read all of the toics in the parking pranksters blog and copy anhthing slightly relevant and add it to your bundle

[ericsbrother]

you may well get a begging letter dressed up as a threat from VCS offering you the chance to pay them just £120 or thereabouts for them to drop the claim. If you do it is a sure signs that they are thinking of pulling out.

 

Now check with the court to see if they have paid the allocation fee 9 probably have as you have a date) and check when you have to exchange docs by, usually 14 days before. you have to send a copy of everything you want to use to court and also to VCS. If your bundle to VCS arrives a day or 2 late but got to court on time nothing bad will happen

 

When VCS sned theirs post it up here so we can pick holes in it as well. there are procedures at court that need to be considered but more of that nearer the time such as who signed their docs and who is going to attend on their behalf.

 

Mediation not practiable for this, you either owe them or you dont, its not like a buiolder claiming that you need to apy him for dodgy work and you refusing to apy, where there are grounds to mediate on paying for some of the work etc

[ericsbrother]

I bet it doesn t mention the claims they have lost from this site.

Look some up on the Parking prankster's blogspot and use them as examples.

 

By all means glean similar from other motoring forums as well,

each has its own approaches but try to avoid using verbiose openings to your statement.

 

anything starting " it is admitted that the defendants is".... makes me sink in my chair, no-one talks like that so use the third person " the defendant" but them write in english rather than lawyer speak.

 

I say defendant, claimant etc rather than names at it is then clear who is saying what and about whom whereas if you say Bill said that Pete told him Bill was wrong it doesnt explain what part they are playing in this drama

[ericsbrother]

You do the same when writing up scientific experiments so say things like  "and then an exothermic reaction was observed"  rather than "and then I burnt the lab down"

[ericsbrother]

the other thing that VCS  and other parking co's do is tell lies about where their signs are and what they say so you will have to go there and photograph the signs and make note of their locations so you can show any disparity.

 

Mpw a thing to bear in mind is that the GDPR was introfuced in 2018 so do their signs mention this of the DPA when they say about obtaining  keeper details?

If they mention the GDPR then regardless of what the content says about parking they are trying to pull a fast one and once caught out telling lies the rest of their evidence will be taken with a pinch of salt.

[ericsbrother]

your defence relies on everything you can chuck in as you dont know what the judge will place weighting to and what they will ignore.

 

Do not leave out things that can be used even if they arent part fo your main argument.

 

there is a case here recently where Dawood v Camden was the decider and although that has been suggested as a reason for saying the parking co has no rights this case is the only example we have seen where it was chosen by the judge to be the main reason for rejecting the claim.

[ericsbrother]

any indication on what the judges used to make their decision as the 2 companies- VCS and EXcel are not linked and there is no assignment of any contract by the LL nor one easily allowable in the terms of the contract.

 

there are cases on the Parking Pranlsters blog about the Simple Simon's inability to tell what role he is playing on a particular day and he does try his luck with a lie about the supposed relationship between the 2 entities but there is no law to support that but judges will assume that they are being told the truth inless you can show otherwise

 

so get digging.