VCS PCN LOC Now claimform - Berkeley Centre, Sheffield

[Legggy]

Hi all,

 

I have the same situation as By sh3ffield in that I've been using the Berkeley Centre, Sheffield for years and it always had 2 hr free parking and I only became aware of the change after receiving the NTK. 

 

I have not appealed or responded in anyway so far as advised.

 

I have the letter before claim also 

now so should I send the response as suggested by ericsbrother (below) ; or do you advise a separate course of action here?

 

"Address letter to Simon Renshaw-Smith at the VCS office in Sheffield

Dear Simple Simon,

I am in receipt of your LBA but fail to see what the cause for action by VCS is against me as the parking at the site and thus any contractual offer and consideration is with a different company that according to Companies House has no relationship with VCS.

As there is no cause for action this makes me wonder what reason was given to the DVLA for the aceesssing of my personal data and so invite you to drop this ridiculous claim  before you spend even more of your money on this by way of settlement of  a counterclaim as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

I look forward to your deafening silence."

 

 

Attached are my NTK to Letter before claim.

 

Hope you can help

 

 

vcs_excel_Berkeley_Sheffield__ntk_to_letterb4claim-min.pdf

[brassnecked]

As each case is different could you answer the questions on this and post them then we can advise specifically on your issue.  can't see the letter harming your case as it shows you are trying to avoid them spending money on a claim likely to fail.

 

 

[Legggy]

Hi brassnecked, I have not received a court claim yet so am at the letter before claim (lbc) stage so can't complete this yet or can/should I be using the lbc? Sorry I am new to this? 

[dx100uk]

[brassnecked]

keep it ready in case they do after you send the snotty letter.

[Legggy]

They have sent all the paperwork ie ntk up to lbc with an incorrect spelling of my name.

 

Looks like the person I bought the car off spelled incorrectly hence dvla have an incorrect spelling but I never clicked on beforehand.

 

Firstly I will need to find the log book and contact dvla of the correct spelling.

 

What does this mean for me as far as VCS are concerned?

 

Should I still send the snotty letter? 

[dx100uk]

yes

[ericsbrother]

incorrect spelling of name immaterial, they could lawfully just address the letter and court claim to "John" if you are known as that.

 

Now the point about my suggested letter is that VCS have issued a demand when Excel are in charge of the parking at the site and they are 2 separate companies with no ties according to companies house so VCS have no interest in the matter (locus standi).

 

they have lost court cases like this before so it is always worth using the letter telling them you know they dont have a cause to chase you as they arent he people with the agreeemnt there.

 

now simple Simon renshaw-Smith owns both companies and he likes to claim that they can swap things around as they see fit but this isnt true but beware that some judges will accept agency between the companies even where there is no evidence of authority to do the swap so that menas you will need to challenge this point all the way down the line if it goes further and understand somehting of third party rights and contracts and obligations.

 

i would send the letter by all means but also ask the DVLA who has obtained your keeper details so you can at least show the wrong comapny ahs doen that and thus breached their KADOE contract with the DVLA and thus damaging their claim about agency

 

the change in terms at the site is irrelevant so not worth emntioning, if the signs are placed correctly that will be immaterial so you should also make a map of where the signs are, what they say etc and photogrpah any that are different and note their location.

 

Do the same for the payment machine as that is what makes the contract when you agree those terms and feed the meter.

[Legggy]

Defence submitted 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a. The car park signs are owned by Excel parking. Under CPR 31.14 I have requested evidence of the claimants contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was not contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

4. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

N180 will be submitted in the next few days as due 27th

 

 

[Mrs O'Frog]

What did DVLA say as a matter of interest?

[Legggy]

Apologies Mrs O'Frog I must have not hit submit reply previously as the DVLA avenue proved unsuccessful with another case hence not followed through.

 

Was hoping this would go away as I did have a settlement letter for £125 but have now received their Bundle (attached).

 

Please Help and advise of what I should have ready to challenge them at court and by when as hearing date of 20/02/20? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VCS_Bundle_Redacted.compressed_72dpi.pdf

[dx100uk]

exchange date of Ws's should be on page 2 of the letter from the court you last received.

 

lots of Berkeley court cases here already so there must be a WS to base yours on too.

 

thanks for keeping us updated since September!

[dx100uk]

 

[dx100uk]

a better scan of pages 24+5 please 'the contract'

[Legggy]

Hi dx100uk, was able to follow the advice on the case above hence kept quiet since September along with some difficult personal circs to deal with. Please find attached a better scan of pages24+5 but the originals they sent aren't great.

 

Thanks

VCS Contract.pdf

[dx100uk]

PM the user 

get them to give you their claim number

you should be able to blow your case out the water as free parking is TWO hours.

they WON

[lookinforinfo]

Their contract was dated 2010 for 3 years. No updated contract shown. Also they are agreeing to observe the BPA code of conduct when they swapped over to the IPC in 2014. They still have Flashpark [part of VCS with BPA] but that is a different company altogether.

[ericsbrother]

That is somehting to shove home in your WS, VCS will claim that they areall one and the same but Companies house doesnt have any connection between any of simon R-S's businesses. If one was a subsidiary of anither then you can be sued in the name of a different co but that doesnt apply.  there is a previous court report on this on the Parking Pranksters blogspot somewhere. Copy it and use it in your defence

[Legggy]

On 15/01/2020 at 02:08, dx100uk said:

PM the user 

get them to give you their claim number

you should be able to blow your case out the water as free parking is TWO hours.

they WON

I have managed to get their claim number. In my WS (along with the defence submitted online) do I not simply state as in the case with claim number X the case was dismissed on the grounds of 2 hours free parking hence the same should be applied to my case?

 

On 15/01/2020 at 23:27, lookinforinfo said:

Their contract was dated 2010 for 3 years. No updated contract shown. Also they are agreeing to observe the BPA code of conduct when they swapped over to the IPC in 2014. They still have Flashpark [part of VCS with BPA] but that is a different company altogether.

Really sorry but this is over my head...

What does it mean in layman's terms with reference to agreeing to observe the BPA when swapping to IPC?

[brassnecked]

 BPA and IPC They are competing trade Bodies with differing Terms and Conditions, must be one or the other  cannot be both, put wrong one in their WS and it s likely game over for them.

 

 

[Legggy]

Please advise if the following is ok to use?

 

I will say as follows:

 

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx

2. With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours. 

3. The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.

 

4. Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.

 

5. While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.

 

6. Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.

 

7. In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.

 

8. There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).

 

 

9. This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.

 

10. Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.

 

11. Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant.

12. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.

 

13. As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.

 

14. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS.

15. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim.

16. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007. 

17. The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage.

18. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.

 

‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’

 

The Claimant did not evidence any contract by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

19. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

Thanks

 

[Gick]

I think that you might like to change the second date in para 6 to 'on or about 25th November 2013'

[Legggy]

Thanks Gick , will do. How is the rest to use as WS?

[ericsbrother]

with point 17 it is company law that says they are separate so dont invite them to try and lie their way out of it, state it as a fact that they are separate and therefore no right  to make a claim( locus standi)

[Legggy]

Thanks ericsbrother.

Is there a link to the specific company law that I could use in my WS please incase the judge is unaware of company law and allows them to act on behalf of Excel?