VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - 'no stopping' - London Southend Airport***Claim Dismissed****** Now VCS asking for Leave To Appeal^^^

[dx100uk]

neither of those cases remove the fact the land is gov'd by byelaws of which, a county court has no business to adjudge upon.

 

[brassnecked]

Perhaps the judge will pick up on that the cases are pants as area subject to Bylaws

[WoodDD]

The judge did offer me a choice:

1) go ahead with hearing 

2) adjoure for a later date

 

I opt for 2) as I felt uneasy with the last minute WS from the claimant.

 

The judge has also asked me to send my updated cost to the court and the claimant. Should I send the extra argument for the 'Semark Jullien' as part of my WS as well?

Thank you very much!

[WoodDD]

My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!
 

Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020

 

VCS v Ward

 1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.

 

 Semark-Jullien Case

 2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

 

 3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield

 

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

 

[lookinforinfo]

Very good finds indeed which help to undermine their case..

And to strengthen your case take a look  look at a thread by Tom Price also at Southend airport which is several threads below yours and you will see that he won his case on the fact that he was stopped rather than parked. On top of that he had the Airports Act  1986 to quote. The relevant section is no 63

"

Byelaws are covered at S.63

 (2)Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws—

(d)for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;"

 

That confirms that the roads at the airport are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws neither of which is relevant land therefore  PoFA cannot apply. And  VCS should be aware of that.

 

Another thing is that when you posted their WS you didn't include their contract which I missed at the time. However Tom Price included it in his. And guess what-the  alleged offence they are pursuing you for, No Stopping, is not included in their contract.

 

If you look at the end of their Service Agreement [aka contract] you will a list of contravention on Schedule 1 [7]

(46) PARKING/WAITING ON A ROADWAY WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITTED

 

That is the nearest to what you did. But you were not parking nor waiting -you were stopped so there was no reason to issue you with a PCN as you never broke any of their contraventions. Looks like they breached your GDPR and you should include that as it carries a hefty charge £750 is not unheard of.

 

Have a read of his WS too which may give you further ideas even possibly to rebut some of the points VCS  make.

[WoodDD]

Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:

 

VCS v Ward

 

 

1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.

 

63 Airport byelaws.

(2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws—

(d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;

[lookinforinfo]

"These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.

 

I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.

 

By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.

 

 

[WoodDD]

Thanks @lookinforinfo.

 

The text is updated:

 

1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all.

 

It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'.

 

The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A].

 

Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case.

 

These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.

[lookinforinfo]

We cannot be certain that VCS are aware of the Airport Act's existence. So it cannot be said that they neglected or denied it. Much safer just to infer that it calls into question the accuracy of their WS.

 

What you want to do is to put doubt in the Judge's mind about the veracity of the WS without using such strong language as yours. They can vehemently deny they were aware of any such Act and your final sentence is thrown out of the window. By simply calling into question the accuracy of their WS you are putting a query into the mind of the Judge even if VCS do deny knowledge. And the Judge will already have downgraded their WS  somewhat with the non appearance of its author.

 

But it is good that you are looking to improve your WS. Ideally you want VCS  not to turn up in Court and one way to do that is that VCS will not want something in your WS scrutinised or queried by the Judge. And casting doubt on their WS is to be avoided since they are usually a concoction of lies and half truths. Which is why the author of the WS does not appear since they could then be subject to charges of perjury.

[WoodDD]

Thank you @lookinforinfo, for your good tips.

 

Someone suggested me to present the Supplement at hearing so that VCS could not produce another counter argument. Is it a good idea?

[AndyOrch]

Supplemental Witness statements must be filed and served not less than 3 days pre hearing.

 

Andy

[brassnecked]

It could work 2 ways it might make them decide to bail out and withdraw ilast minutef they can't counter it, or plod on and try to wing it on the day

[WoodDD]

Thanks!

 

How about my cost?

 

Ordinary Cost

Loss of earnings/leave, incurred through attendance at Count on 06/10/2020, 10/11/2020, 30/11/2021 - £200.00 * 3 = £600.00

Sub Total - £600.00

Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g)

Research, preparation and drafting of documents (24 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £456.00

Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage - £24.00

Sub Total - £480.00

£ Total Costs Claimed - £1080.00

[AndyOrch]

Assuming its now been allocated to the Small Claims Track....costs are fixed.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.14

 

 

[WoodDD]

My 3rd hearing is going to be held tomorrow. 

 

Helped by google, It seems Southend Airport has changed its markings and signs.

 

1) Red -- > Yellow

2) Byelaws is now written in signs

 

Does this mean my case has no ground at all?

 

new byelaw sign.pdf

[dx100uk]

why they are not retrospective....

and 2 it clearly states WHO put them there .....NOT VCS!!

[WoodDD]

I think they are new signs and markings.

 

Basically, all the arguments of 'non compulsory byelaws' arguments by VCS are nonsense.

 

Anyway I'll bring this up tomorrow. Wish me luck

Edited March 29, 2021 by WoodDD

[dx100uk]

24 minutes ago, WoodDD said:

all the arguments of 'non compulsory byelaws' arguments by VCS are nonsense.

 

they always were...and simple simon knows this, which is why he has what appears to be an ever rotating employment door for who writes his dictated Witness statements. bit like Tronald Dump.

 

'The airport authority putting up new signs stating 'no stopping' surely underlines the fact they are the only ones that 'could' prosecute, and that would be in a magistrates court as a byelaws matter, not a county court by a 'third party' under some imaginary civil contract ........

[WoodDD]

Also the contract between Southend Airport and VCS started from 1/7/2019. The alleged offence was on 24/6/2019.

[brassnecked]

That little contractural detail  needs to be pointed out at an appropriate time

[WoodDD]

Should I point this out right at the beginning of the hearing?

[WoodDD]

Ignore the date -- I was confused. The date of my stopping event was actually 8/8/2019. The photos of signs given by VCS WS were from 24/06/2019.

[WoodDD]

Finished and I WON.

 

The guy who presented VCS couldn't prove the landowner of the land, so the case is dismissed. I was only awarded £ 95 (the maximum) for loss of earnings. Hurry!

 

Huge thanks to all!

Edited March 30, 2021 by WoodDD

[AndyOrch]

Well done ...topic title updated.

 

Andy

[honeybee13]

You did really well. Thank you for coming back to tell us.

 

HB