Jump to content


andythepandy93

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

Recommended Posts

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree and the IPC and BPA CoP's state that the parking co must have all of the permissions in place and the POFA requires all companies to abide by their ATA CoP.

 

Now a big problem is most councils dont care about breaches of the 2007 Act wheh it comes to advertising signs and there is nothing they can do as far as punishing the wrongdoer goes but they can and will enforce if you can show then where things are wrong.

 

Nottingham, E sussex and  N Norfolk have all come down on parking co's flouting the law when it has been pointed out to them.

I'm sure there are others as well but the thing is, like with a lack of keeper liability you want to have more than this to arm yourself as most judges wont know and so believe the parking co when they lie to the court.

 

Also some judges will look at INTENT rather than the law hence someone getting clobbered for parking in Manchester when there were no signs let alone proper ones with permission.

 

Now you need to take the fight to them on these issues and as you have requested sight of their contracts, permissions etc

you make the point about the lack of authority and force them to show what they have by making a meal of it in your WS, where you drag up all of these points to at least leave a doubt in the mind of the judge about the reliability fo VCS as a witness and that may well win you the day rather than any individual point being the killer argument

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/08/2019 at 23:25, Mrs O'Frog said:

Contends rather than contents.

Ah yes, thanks for spotting that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any harm in me mentioning the planning permission issue in my defence even if in a case where it wouldn't help?

Need to get this dealt with today, as I'm tempted to submit what I wrote in the previous message (with typos corrected)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you use every bit of ammunition you can

 

so yes you use it and you also copy out the 2007 Act and add that to your bundle as well so you can show the judge that their signage and cameras (1995 act if on poles rather than attached to building ) do need PP and are not deemed consent or permitted development.

 

They will argue that deemed consent under s 2 applies but it doesnt as that is for "informational" signage like bus stops and railway station name signs. They are ADVERTISING a unilateral offer of a contract, not telling you about fire exits.

Worth using this sort of comparison as well.

 

so you say there is no evidence of then having the permission rather than going on about the weak unclear responses from the council- keep it short and simple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm going to submit the following to MCOL unless anyone raises any objections

 

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 contends that the 
Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can 
be no claim.

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 contends that such permission was never sought nor 
granted therefore there can be no claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is all you are going to submit and you havent missed anything out i would suggest that defence will get struck out once past allocation as it offers no prospect of success. Not suggesting you put waffle in but you need more substantive grounds 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, andythepandy93 said:

So I'm going to submit the following to MCOL unless anyone raises any objections

 

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 contends that the 
Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can 
be no claim.

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 contends that such permission was never sought nor 
granted therefore there can be no claim. 

 

yes good to go..

less is more 

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

 

yes good to go..

less is more 

 

dx

 

And what is your suggestion if the defence is struck out?

There is no reponse at all to the parking  event at all. Judges do no like technically defences these days

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bits gone from before?

Parking was limited to 1 hrs, but who can change that when i bet the org planning by the council said otherwise typically 3 hrs?


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The OP has now submitted their defence after taking advice on another parking forum, they have looked at defences which have been done by a legally qualified poster (CILEX registered,and a law degree and well known and respected in the "parking industry) after being advised that the defence they suggested posting on its own was told it was a loosing defence.

 

Lets hope they end up winning their case.

 

 

Edited by Browntrout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the OP not able to confirm this ?  How do you know what the OP has done without it being posted to the thread Browntrout ?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing wrong with the reasonaing behind the defence but I would have stated " no contract was created so no cause for action because...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, but I assume it's too late now. i was sitting tight right up until 4pm for a reply on the other forum but none came so I assumed it was good to go. let's hope it's enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to waste time and money challenging thsi before an alloction for a hearing expect a CMO ordering you to put in a more detailed defence. For reasons of cost they wont be doing that though ut they may well ask for it to be struck out as part of their WS and as you will be filling it in with whipped cream and strawberries so it is nice and fat that wont wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...