VCS ANPR PCN Claimform - overstay - St Marys Gate Retail Park sheffield

[andythepandy93]

And can I just clarify that if (when, by the sounds of things) they rule in favour of VCS, the amount I will have to pay is £185, and this will not effect credit ratings etc if I pay straight away

[Browntrout]

 

it will be around the £185. - but could be less if the judge ruled against their add ons

And no if you lost and paid within 28 days of the the hearing it wont affect your credit file.

[andythepandy93]

Thanks, and final 2 Qs:

 

1. what happens in the gap between submitting my defence and the court date? Is it just sat in a queue waiting to come to court? and

2. do i just sit there in court and listen, or will i be being reading my defence/being asked questions etc

 

Thanks again

[Browntrout]

Allocation, directions etc

I suggest you do do some research,

[ericsbrother]

there is a sequence that both sides have to follow so after you have acknowledged the claim you have another fortnight to submit your outline defence if you didnt do so with the AOS.

 

The court then sends you an allocation questionnaire and if you dont accept mediation the matter will automatically be allocated to the nearest court to your home.

 

the allocation questionnaire also asks for dates you arent available and you can use this to say you want the hearing close to where you work rather than close to home, many do as they make it more likely the y will show that any loss of earnings has been minimised by this.

 

VCS DO often drop their claims, after the notice saying the matter has been transferred to your local court they have to pay another £25 hearing fee ( they slap their claims in online in bulk so only pay half upfront and that way they are in profit if people dont send back the paperwork by a considerable margin)

 

however it is usually for the airport " no stopping" type claims where they know they are in the wrong as simon R-S has been told off personally for this but they know that many people will pay up or fail to defend so it is worth their while to make false claims.

 

Now they will always attend for certain car parks such as the Peel Centre because they have lost there before and spent a lot of money on new signs and still lose becasue the car park is badly laid out but he wants to bulldoze these cases.

 

so you make sure that you do what you need to do in the timescale, this will be on the court paperwork but can be confusing if you ahvent dealt with it before. you have a fortnight to acknowlwedge the claim and then another fortnight to submit an outline defence.

 

after you get the allocation questionnaire you have another fortnight to fill that in and once submitted and the case referred to your local court VCS have to pay the fee in tiem.

 

If you use moneyclaimonline you can look at the clock.

if they dont pay up then you ask that the claim be chucked out ( court usually gives the a few more days before they do).

 

once you get a court date for a hearing you have to submit your full defence to the court and VCS at least a fortnight before the hearing and they have to do the same with their detailed claim. Again, if either side are late it can go against them.

you then have to turn up at court on the date and you take a copy of your paperwork with you so you can refer to it.

between the allocation of the hearing and the actual hearing you will have a lot to do looking for things to help you that you dont already have- previous cases, maps,plans etc.

 

Now at court the claimant has to present their case and then you can ask questions ( the judge may well ask questiosn if points of law are a serious issue) then you take your defence and they can question you. the claimant will be asked to sum up having heard your bit and you sum up rebutting what they have added verbally of possible.

 

The judge will then sya what they think is the relevant parts of the claim and the defence and refer to any cases they think are relevant and decide who wins the day.

 

Now the ability to question their side is a great advantage to a litigant in person (you) as you can push the ppint that the person writing their witness statement isnt actually there and therefore you cant cross examine and where there are blatant lies/conflicts

 

you can request that the judge apply weighting to this or even throw out their witness statement as no-one is there to answer about the actual truth that has been attested to.

 

Court hearings replaces trial by combat so consider this a sword fight, you turn up with a big sword ( evidence) and fight, you dotn sit there and hope that thier blows dont land

 

[Browntrout]

Eric

I would agree with most of the above, I am coming across a lot of more no stopping claims , since VCS won an appeal on a no stopping case before a circuit judge

 

Another tactic which is worth doing (although not for singular tickets like this) is the use of a witness summons forcing the attendance of the parking company rep,

[lookinforinfo]

The 60 pound add on can only be added if there is a mention on their signs that they may add on extra costs and they often vaguely specify something depending on the Company [I recently saw one that said it was for damages!].

 

they are doing it to cover their expenses in using DRP and other debt collectors for example.

Without that disclaimer they cannot add such charges.

Bear in mind that if they do charge them, it can only apply to the driver as if the keeper was not there they cannot be subject to 

that demand, only the driver.

 

Now the question is how that charge will be viewed by the Court.

The DVLA has stipulated that these parking goons and their dodgy debt collectors and lawyers are still subject to the Debt Collection Guidance issued years ago by the now defunct OFT.

 

Under "Charging for Debt Collection" the OFT stipulated that it cannot be done without prior notification  and

" d. applying unreasonable charges, e.g. charges not based on actual and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.       

And 60 pound does seem disproportionate if it is for DRP for example to send out two or three scummy letters.

 

I have included the whole guidance where it states quite clearly hat the Parking Companies are responsible for the actions of their agents and can be considered unfit to hold their licence should they not clamp down when there is a complaint made.

 

It's worth 'a read to see if you can get an extra dig in to add to your case.

"    https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060716004337/http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf                     "

        "

[ericsbrother]

I have seen cases where the judge has found in the parking co's favour becasue the intent of yellow  lines is clear even if there is no law to enforce them on private land. the wording of the supposed contract is then somthing that you have to pull to pieces.

 

My observations of the law makes me conclude the higher up the court system you travel the more the judges will side with money so companies  like PE will eventually get their way because they are owned by Crapita and pressure will be brought to bear on the legislators.

No high court judge is going to sit next to you on the tube but they will be attending the same cocktail parties as the boss of Capita so they form their opinions by taking soundings in a very small pool.

 

If it want so how come commercail contact law was forced upon a consumer contract ( Beavis)? Hegarty has made it clear for years that he wanted all contracts made the same way and as he was a commercial contract lawyer before he was a judge there is no surprise that he shoved such decisions on the public when the will of parliament was not in accord with that.

 

As for the add ons, they cant apply to a claim against the KEEPER and this is amde cear in the POFA. the parking co's all try it on because 95% of the people pay up at each stage so it is a nice earner for them.

 

You think about it, 300,000 tickets issued, 105,000 dont get paid so the parking co threatens court and another 80,000 pay up the higher amount.

 

the remainder go to court and out of those a relative few have a decent defence and that is where we try to spread the word.

 

If all 300,000 had to go to court apart from sinking the legal system in this country the parking cos would lose 60% of their income and take a year to get paid the rest.

 

Do you think tey would behave or just twist the arm of their friends in parliament ( not the MP's but the lobbyists and retiring civil servants joining the merry-go-round)

[andythepandy93]

I've had the title register document back - the land owner at the time was:

Quote

(08.04.2010) Proprietor: British Overseas Bank Nominees Limited (Co. Regn. No. 00220905) and W G T C Nominees Limited (Co. Regn. No. 01255218) of 135 Bishopsgate, London, EC2M 3UR

 

[ericsbrother]

so no chance that VCS travelled all the way to the Cayman islands to get a letter signed their puppetmasters.

 

Now you have to tell a judge that there is no chain of authority between the actual owners and VCS. They will have signed a deal with some management co so you need to try and force that issue as a lack of authority or agency- ie no way would the owners have signed a contract with their management co that allowed them to profit at ther owners expense so there is no clain and therefore no possible authority granted to allow VCS the right to take civil action in their own name  or to create contracts with the public.

 

If you don't challenge this the judge way well assume that they do have a contract or belive they do so you push the point and demand to see it as they havent shown it to you via a CPR 31.14 request.

 

Start getting proactive rather than waiting for them to hit you . Read up on why the bill should only be £100 and not £160 or £185 and quote the law-POFA para 9 etc

 

[andythepandy93]

Okay great, thanks!

 

On ‎02‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 16:13, lookinforinfo said:

The 60 pound add on can only be added if there is a mention on their signs that they may add on extra costs and they often vaguely specify something depending on the Company [I recently saw one that said it was for damages!].

 

they are doing it to cover their expenses in using DRP and other debt collectors for example.

Without that disclaimer they cannot add such charges.

Bear in mind that if they do charge them, it can only apply to the driver as if the keeper was not there they cannot be subject to 

that demand, only the driver.

 

VCS provided me with copies of what all the signs in the car park say, and there is no mention of a £60 add on cost. The only wording that maybe suggest it is:

 

Quote

Additional costs will be incurred through late payment including any costs incurred as a result of debt recovery and/or court action.

 

[Mrs O'Frog]

Okay, well first point is that the "additional costs" could only be claimed from the driver, not the keeper (not sure if you're defending as driver or keeper).

Second point (if the driver) where is the copy of the invoice to prove that they have incurred these costs rather than just made them up?

[andythepandy93]

@Mrs O'Frog I outed myself as the driver in my original appeal

[Mrs O'Frog]

Then 2nd part will apply. The didn't say "you will be charged £xx.xx" they said "additional costs". You require evidence that these costs have been incurred. Where is the invoice from DRiPpy debt collectors or whoever to VCS? Getting Dora in accounts to print a standard template letter and bung it in the post does not justify the gazillion quid they want to add on to the original charge.

[andythepandy93]

So I've taken bits and pieces from lots of different things I have read on here..... is this resembling anything like I should be submitting in a few days?

1. The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public by way of an assignment from the proprietor to do the same and to make civil claims in their own name. The Defendant contents that the Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can be no claim. 
2. The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. The Defendant contents that such permission was never sought nor granted therefore there can be no claim. 

Should I be mentioning anything to do with the addon not being applicable at this stage, or would that discussion only come up in the stage where the judge rules against me and I'm contesting the addon charge?

[dx100uk]

looking good

the rest is not applicable until witness statement stage [if it gets that far]

 

dx

 

[Browntrout]

Number 2 has no relevance to the ability of a claimaint to enter a contract with a driver, so remove it. I have no idea why D's put this in defences, it makes no material difference 

 

People on forums seem to confuse planning consent with advertising consent which if not in place is an issue for a claimaint

[dx100uk]

surely..if the equipment does not have planning consent then is illegally erected so thus its evidence is inadmissible. ?

[Browntrout]

Lack of planning consent is not illegal , (ie no criminal offence) it is a civil issue.  Where as lack of advertising consent is a criminal offence in itself.  

 

The only time planning consent goes in to the realms of a criminal offence is when a relevant party fails to comply with a planning enforcement notice

 

Dx100uk out of interest can i ask what success you have had yourself in running that as part of any defence cases when you have been in the county court with people?

Edited August 7, 2019 by Browntrout

[lookinforinfo]

The failure to have  planning consent for the advertising is a criminal offence which is obviously an an issue for the claimant but additionally if there is no permission for the signs to be there then they should not be there thus there is no contract between the parking company and the motorist.

[Browntrout]

This a red herring in my opinion and clutching at straws, it is not my view a successful basis for defending a claim (the latter).  You would struggle to get most DJ's to accept that argument.  The only basis i believe on which D can win here is contractual issues between the landowner/agent/occupier etc etc

[lookinforinfo]

BT my post 98 was in response to this post of yours

"  People on forums seem to confuse planning consent with advertising consent which if not in place is an issue for a claimant  " .

 

I took it to mean you were taking about advertising consent not being in place which I went on to explain the bit about the signs should not have been there. 

 

Not sure why it it is a red herring.

The lack of response calls into question whether there was permission [even if there was] and even if there was advertisement permission granted it is normally granted only for five years................

[andythepandy93]

I did a load of searching and could find no relevant applications on the sheffield planning portal website, but not sure if all applications would be on there/i missed it/i was looking for the wrong thing

 

i searched using the 200-202 eyre street address 

[Mrs O'Frog]

Contends rather than contents. If the signs are unlawfully there (for whatever breach it falls under - EB knows the ins and outs of the planning) then there can be no contract with VCS as you cannot enter into a criminal compact.

[Browntrout]

The signs at this site are NOT unlawful. Time to move on from that argument