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

[ericsbrother]

It is about the law, not the company. Very few murderers will have been  repeat offenders but it doesnt change the law because of that

so, doesnt even need to be  about parking  as this is about CONTRACTS and their validity and enforceability

so look at anything regarding third party claims, assignments etc as well to show that VCS ad Excel cant just swap shirts when they feel like it

[anniebattlemum]

The only people who mentioned Excel in our case, though, are the BW Legal folk who said basically pay up to EXEL. I was going to use that as vexatious harassment, which contravenes BPA Code.

[anniebattlemum]

This should be the shrunk version of their bundle. Hopefully I've eliminated ID's. 

Reduced pdf Claimant's statement.pdf

[ericsbrother]

5 hours ago, anniebattlemum said:

The only people who mentioned Excel in our case, though, are the BW Legal folk who said basically pay up to EXEL. I was going to use that as vexatious harassment, which contravenes BPA Code.

 

then you havent read up on Simple Simons shovelling of money out of a loss making company into his own personal bank account have you? all in the public domain if you know where to look.

 

Start with the Parking pranksters blogspot yet again and you will come across this story.

 

Then you will start to understand why he wants the courts to accept that VCS and Excel are in the same stable, the creditors of the companies wont quite be so happy

[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.

[ericsbrother]

to get a person banned from suing as a vexatious litigant needs them to unsuccessfully sue the same person 6 times.

I have parked in a manner that would get up the nose of many a parking co but so far when they have been clobbered in or before a court  claim they dont seem to want to come out and play again.

Now that raises some questions about the processing of my personal data and the assumption that the same car that was the cause for action on a previous occasion is still owned by me perhaps or maybe when tehy gatheer the DVLA data they then run it through their computer to see who is on the not gullible list and decide not to bother with the NTK. Either way it raises issues of storage and processing of personal data but that is for when I really have nothing better to do

[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.

[anniebattlemum]

This is still a work in progress, but if anyone can speed read, could you take a look please?

I'd really like to get this finished in the next few days, so I can get my life back.

 

There are just so many cases to read and so much evidence to put together, it's hard to leave anything out.

I don't want to bore the judge but there is so much that seems relevant.

 

I'm wondering if I get it in before the deadline for paying court fees, whether VCS might withdraw but I doubt it. 

 

Did this get posted??

DEFENCE STATEMENT FEB 2020.pdf

 

I would still like to leave the harassment stuff in as it makes me feel better to demonstrate what rotters they are

.

As for the data, well it's just an extra niggle. 

[lookinforinfo]

Well don Battler. I would have made a bit more out of their non compliance with the COD making their WS in 5 being pretty close to perjury. Then they would I feel definitely not want your defence seen in Court.  But it is comprehensive enough as it stands to certainly give them more than doubts about continuing.

[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.

[anniebattlemum]

I'm so relieved - I was expecting you all to rip it apart! Thx for those points which will be incorporated. 

[brassnecked]

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

[ericsbrother]

very quickly for your point 12 there isn another case where the "chain of authority" was the key factor for dismissing the parking co's claim, try and find it on the prankster's blog but use the term when you talk about the agents  not having those rights

 

point 13 a bit long winded just say they have moved and the signs are wrong etc rather than explaining the workings of the postal system

point 24 EXCEL are NOT the parent co, they are not related at all and this is made clear by their registrations at companies hOUse. Dont say they are  related or you will screw yourself

 

So rewrite this to show that VCS are suing you but a totally separate co actually manage the parking and VCS have no right to bring a claim against anyone. use the CH entties to prove this  ( they will claim that as simple simon owns both they can do what they like but it isnt so but you have to again use the extract from companies law and limited liability to prove a negative)

 

point 25. You havent said that the POFA expressly entitled  the company to claim the amount in the NTK if  they are claiming from the defendant in the capacity of keeper and any additional costs, even if advertised on the siganeg arnet allowed as the keeper was not party to that contract so I suggest that you swap points 26 and 27 arond so they flow better from this expanded point

 

point 37. now covered earlier but again there are cases you can quote, some can be found on thsi forum

 

point 41 is not withn the powers of the court so you might want to reconsider using it but drop point 42 it is subjective and not soemthing you have "witnessed". It looks like you are telling them their job and that is never going to win you a ftriend

[anniebattlemum]

Thank you so much Eric's brother. I will address all those points and thank you all for wading thru all that stuff.

 

I have a point to add as have just discovered that the IPC code of practice forbids passing data to anyone who isn't AOS  accredited or entitled thru legal activities. So the debt collectors do not qualify and that is another example of breaking the code & therefore their entitlement to DVLA data. 

[ericsbrother]

That is a moot point as the law doesnt consider a dca (or lawyer) as acquiring or processing  the data but acting as carriers i the same way as a telephone or postal service  so entitled through legal actvities

 

Now how a 2 bit scary letter writer with no qualifications can be considered  in the same way as a regulated solicitor beats me but that is where we are and the GDPR allows this so i wouldnt be bothering with that argument as it will dilute your overall defence and give them somehting to latch on to when they are clutching at straws.

 

What has been shown to be unlawful is the assignment of the debt in the way that a couple of companies did to bandits like DEAL

[anniebattlemum]

This is what I intended to add:

 

1.       Parking companies obtain keeper data from the DVLA by way of the KADOE contract. The IPC Code of Practice, to which VCS is committed by membership, states in Para 5.2:

 

“You must not pass any Personal Data to any third party company who is not a member of an Accredited Operator Scheme (or similar scheme of a different name) with an Accredited Trade Association or a firm entitled to carry on reserved legal activities.”

 

The Third edition (2015), applicable in November and December 2015 when the Defendant received letters from Rossendales Debt Collectors, is attached. This passing of the Defendant’s details to a third party debt collection company is a direct contravention of the Claimant’s obligations as a member of the IPC, and makes a mockery of their assertion  in Paragraph 5 of their statement, that they are in full compliance.

 

Are you saying the law has no objection to these debt collectors receiving the info, Eric's Brother?

 

I understand that MIL Collections v. George (2018) D8QZ60RM doesn't apply, as it was the Debt Collection Company that brought the case, but is it reasonable for such companies to be provided with personal data in contravention of the industry's own code of practice?

[anniebattlemum]

Sorry didn't mean to question your knowledge and experience Eric's Brother. I'll certainly leave the Data Protection issue out if you think it undermines other arguments. I guess I was just trying to drag up everything I could!!

[ericsbrother]

I wouldnt use that, too subjective and contaiins what is effectivly commentary rather than fact.

You need to look at what the DPA and GDPR describe as reserved legal activites and you will see it incliudes debt collection.

 

The only reason they fall foul of this is because they dont follow the POFA and so the alleged debt isnt a true statement of amount and that isnt somehting that is really worth  winding a judge up over.

By all means make it clear it cant be a true debt because.... . and therefore  appears to breach the IPC CoP

but dont say anying is a mockery

This is a very moot point and adds but a pinch to your other arguments so see how you think it flows from these other points

[anniebattlemum]

Quote

 

OK I  understand thanks. I've taken out the whole section on the DVLA's letter - Government legislation & Data Protection, as it doesn't seem to add anything to the arguments.

 

Sorry the 'quote' came up again, but it was unsolicited! 

[anniebattlemum]

Could you please tell me whether the paralegal who has signed the Statement of Truth and looks as though she will be representing the claimant at the hearing and has only been employed there for a year, is actually qualified to sign the statement of truth in accordance with Practice Direction 22 Para 3, which seems to suggest it has to be a senior manager? Is this a valid point to raise?

[lookinforinfo]

It may be that she has been acting as a paralegal for years even though she has recently joined VCS.

 

No you don't want to challenge her  as her statement is perjurious [if there is such a word] since her testimony should be thrown out by the Court when you point out the discrepancies. I am sure that VCS would not even go to Court if you tore that WS apart. They do not observe the CoP since that would cost them money so to say that they do comply is a total lie. Indeed number 5 on the WS gives the impression that they are the ones who are observing the Law at all times and it is your daughter who is ignoring the law first by parking in the way she did and then by not paying for her breach.

 

So you have to disabuse the Judge of that impression by calling the WS into question and demonstrating that it is a tissue of lies.The last thing VCS  want is for Judges to know what a lying bunch of scumbags they really are. 

 

As I already said above, if you really steam into the WS pointing out the lies then I would be surprised if VCS went ahead with the case which is the whole point of doing an excellent defence. Don't hold back, give them both barrels-just think of the time and effort you have put into this all for 7 minutes of extra time 

 

[dx100uk]

Simon will turn up

If the writer of the ws is not there its inadmissible evidence and should be thrown out

[lookinforinfo]

If you want to avoid going to Court then in addition to calling VCS out for perjury you could add a couple of extra googlies into the mix.

 

Number one is that once a motorist goes beyond the time limit, they become trespassers and here you can quote from Parking Eye v Beavis in your favour

 

"97. ParkingEye concedes that the £85 is payable upon a breach of contract, and that it is not a pre-estimate of damages.

As it was not the owner of the car park, ParkingEye could not recover damages, unless it was in possession, in which case it may be able to recover a small amount of damages for trespass."[ LORD NEUBERGER AND LORD SUMPTION in Supreme Court]

 

So the Judges are saying that the motorist was trespassing but that PE did not have the right to sue for trespass.

Neither does VCS.

 

Second,

Beavis was parked for almost an hour longer than allowed which is where the Judges thought that a charge of £85 was not unconscionable-but for 7 minutes? 

That could be construed as a penalty  and as a penalty the Court would throw out the claim.

 

The question VCS would then have to ask themselves do they really want to risk losing the case for either of those two reasons, never mind the perjury and other points you have made.

 

Losing on either of those two points would stop not only them, but every other parking company from issuing tickets on that topic in future.

 

Also. it might require a rewrite of the CoP and all the signs in the car parks.

 

VCS would be very unpopular with every other parking company as well as many motorists reclaiming money already paid for the same offence.

 

VCS would be either brave or foolhardy to take this case to Court.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Just found the other quote from PE v Beavis relating to your charge being a penalty-

32. The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. 

LORD NEUBERGER AND LORD SUMPTION in Supreme Court]

Seven minutes is surely a secondary obligation and should not merit the full charge by VCS thus making it a penalty and unenforceable in Law.

It is good that the Beavis case can be legitimately used against these crooks when they use it all the time mostly without justification.

[anniebattlemum]

Lots of useful comment there - thank you all so much. I need to revisit Beavis (which I have partially printed out but it's a lengthy judgement) and elaborate on ways to turn it to our advantage. I was too busy trying to rule it out as not comparable, mainly due to signage. Good points - cheers for that.

 

Re right of audience - it was the paralegal who signed their statement and obviously had to use whatever could be gleaned from their files - and sounds like she will be representing them. Whilst I would quite like my day in court as I think their claim is both preposterous and pathetically weak, I prefer not to drag my daughter through it as she would also have to drag the new baby along, and I'm not sure whether the court would like that - even though it doubles as a Family Court!