Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Legggy

VCS PCN LOC Now claimform - Berkeley Centre, Sheffield

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 


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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

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.

 

 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did DVLA say as a matter of interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

 

 


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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

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...