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

[lookinforinfo]

 

It was perfectly understandable to appeal in your circumstances. However you are dealing with a bunch of crooks who would not care for your reason for stopping. You stopped therefore you owe them. End of, to them. 

 

You did not help yourself by appealing as you confirmed that you were the driver since you lost the protection of POFA.

 

In your case this is not so serious since VCS will not take you to Court because the airport is covered by byelaws.

 

So there is no point in taking you to Court since even if you lost [which there is no way you would providing you turned up] any fine that you paid would not go to them but to the exchequer. That is not to say that they may well take you right up to the Court room door hoping you will crack and pay up. 

 

Now that you know they cannot beat you in Court all you have to do is to ignore all of their letters, threats and unregulated debt collectors.

 

The best response is to ignore every piece of communication from them and their scummy side kicks.

 

The only time to react is if you receive a letter of Claim from them then let us know and we will give a rude letter for them and that should make them realise that after all the time and money they have spent chasing you was all for nothing.

[lookinforinfo]

The primary  idea of writing a defence and a Witness statement is to inform the Court and the parking crooks what you situation is viz a viz the claim against you.

The secondary aim is to let  VCS know that

a] they have a fight on their hands and that you are prepared to go to Court

b] draw the Court's attention to the tricks, lies and flaws involving VCS so as to embarrass them into deciding not to go to Court

[lookinforinfo]

if you want to read a comprehensive WS try this thread below -post 228 contains the actual defence, but it is worth reading the whole thread. Bear in mind that if you do a really good WS it is more than likely that the parking company will discontinue rather than be torn to shreds by the Judge.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Yes with one proviso-that you have to get your WS 14 days before the hearing regardless of  WS from VCS. However they should have sent theirs to you before your deadline.

[lookinforinfo]

A very comprehensive and well researched WS-well done.

 

A couple of small points.

 

Parking Eye have started using DCBL as their debt collector on some sites.

Whether it is at the instruction of PE or DCBL are doing it off their own bat, an extra £60 is being added to PCNs.

 

VCS have history of issuing PCNs for ridiculous reasons at airports in particular where they have no stopping rules. 

We have one on the Forum where a motorist was ticketed for stopping at a zebra crossing.

Another one for being stopped in a queue of traffic.

 

Can you not stop if

a predestrian walks out in front of you; 

a cyclist falls off their bike;

stopping to ask for directions;

mechanical breakdown,

punctured tyre;

there's is an obstruction on the road or

the road is flooded

-the list is endless. 

 

When you receive the WS from VCS look at it carefully as they are not above doctoring evidence.

 

[lookinforinfo]

There is so much wrong with their WS.

 

You stopped for a very short time yet she seems to equate that as being parked!

That flies in the face of what parking means.

 

There have been several cases in Court where Judges have defined the meaning of parked.

Not one of them describes it as stopping for a few minutes with the engine running and the driver remaining in the vehicle. And why on earth is POFA being included on s28?

The airport comes under Byelaws and that land is specifically not covered by POFA.

 

Then on s30 she cites Parking Eye v Beavis talking about establishing a contract between the parking company and the motorist to park!

 

then from s33 to s40 they are trying to bamboozle the Court by trying to minimise the effect of the Byelaws.

It is the borough of Southend on Sea that decides the rules there-

https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/sen-byelaws-1983-297c76b8.

 

S12 and s13 confirm that the signs erected by the Council are the ones to be observed.

 

You can also use the Forum search box and cases that have been won against VCS above.

 

s46 The claimant submits the signs are not prohibitive! 

 

The dictionary description of" Prohibitive"-

(of a law or rule) forbidding or restricting something.  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...Is she dumb or what.

s47 Further misdirection-this is nothing to do with parking

s48 refers to the" lawful occupier" not the landowner which is Southend Council. 

I end up going back to s5 which gives the impression that VCS complies totally with their Code of Practice and therefore you, the motorist must be guilty.

yet Time and time again VCS loses in Court because they have not complied with their CoP.

 

The Parking Prankster indicates some of them. 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/

 

and in the case below they took someone to Court knowing that they did not have the right to take this person to Court at all.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C Birmingham 1/8/2017
this was taking a motorist to Court  when the contract for the car park was down to Excel. VCS have lost many cases in Court knowing that they did not have the right to sue as there was no contract between them and motorists-total breach of their CoP and should have put their ability to access motorists data  were it not for the weakness of DVLA and the IPC.

VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955 25/01/2016 Claim discontinued. Costs awarded to motorist.

as above-masquerading as Excel yet again.

[lookinforinfo]

Perry Mason, Honeybee? My  grandmother used to tell me about him.

 

Honeybee is right-it is very informal-no wigs and no hangman's cap.

You refer to the Judge as Sir or Madam and they will be in suits as you should be too, plus wearing a tie.

Do not interrupt the Judge and always be polite to the Judge.

 

If Yasmeen does not appear suggest to the Judge that it would be unfair that their brief is allowed to cross examine you since you have been denied the chance to cross examine her and there were many things that required examination in her WS.

 

Try not to gloat at the end.

Good luck.

 

Do not forget to claim your expenses-time off work, travel, parking and £19 per hour  legal work.

[lookinforinfo]

Total eyewash.

Schedule 4 of POFA at section 2 and 3 describes the relevant land and relevant contract where POFA applies. The airport is operated under statutory control.

The Byelaws are quite clear that their rules are the relevant ones.

 

B   Acts for which Permission is Required 

51] No person shall, without the permission of the Airport Director, post, distribute or display signs etc etc

Under "Interpretation" the Airport Authority is Southend Council [this is the second tranche of Byelaws from the Council appearing under the first set of regs] as there are two sets of Interpretation listed.

 

Where Byelaws exist, any fines arising from breaches of the Byelaws go to the Exchequer rather than the airport or the parking company. So to get round this, the crooks are brought in to get round the money going to the Government.

 

Somewhere on the airport a company allows the crooks to set up their system that rakes in a lot more money than the Byelaws can and they do some sort of profit sharing arrangement together. Effectively they are cheating the Exchequer out of money that should have gone to them had any Byelaw been broken.

 

There should be a contract between the crooks and Southend Council.

 

Don't hold your breath looking for that contract.

[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.

[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.

 

 

[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.

[lookinforinfo]

Actually you had done your homework so well that you could have won on any number of different points. But a win is always great. Well done.

[lookinforinfo]

You could always hope that they didn't pay so you could have some fun sending in bailiffs.

[lookinforinfo]

I am sorry they haven't given up yet. Could be stalling to get your 95 pound together! When you posted up their WS you didn't include their contract with the land owner. Could you please post it up so we can see if they are clutching at straws.

I found this on line 

Southend Council owns the freehold of the airport, but it has been leased since 1994 to London Southend Airport Company Limited, which is now a subsidiary of the Stobart Group.

 

Edited April 10, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

I wonder how many PCNs they have issued for tailgating?

 

[lookinforinfo]

Going back to the Hearing did VCS not have a copy of their contract or was there a doubt by the Judge that Southend airport were the land owners?

Also had the Judge rejected all your other points and the contract was the only sticking point?

[lookinforinfo]

You can object to their appeal. 

 

Explain that their case fell at the first hurdle-the question of land ownership. Stobart under their name of Esken are the land owners so their should be a line from them to London Airport. But even if the Judge is overruled on the land owning part he did not get as far as considering

 

a] no stopping is not no parking

b] no stopping is not even in their list of terms and conditions ie in their contract -so breach of GDPR

c]the land is not relevant land therefore PoFA cannot apply

d] the Airports Act confirms the land is either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws so the case should not have been brought to and another breach of GDPR has occurred.

e] overcharging -abuse of process

 

There are probably others that I have failed to remember but  which you should include on the list.

 

Any of those reasons above a to d are each capable of quashing the VCS case. And VCS and other parking companies have lost cases in Court from each of them.  

 

The judge did not go beyond looking at the contract argument. Had he done so he would have found the other points compelling and quashed the case. 

 

The whole charge against you is without merit and the appeal has no chance of success even if the question of the contract is successful. It is a waste of the Court's time when VCS knows their whole case is so weak as to be spurious.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Byelaws apply to everyone not just the keepers of vehicles. If Byelaws are in place then PoFA cannot apply as land that is covered by Byelaws is not relevant land.

 

The above  information is for all those reading this thread. However essexman, this is not the thread for you to get help or spread misinformation even if you are trying to be helpful.

 

Please start up your own thread by clicking on "Start a New Topic"-it is near the top of the page. Beside it is a  "Reply to this Topic" -you cannot miss it as it is written in a large green box.

 

Once you have opened your own thread we will be able to help you beat the crooks.

 

I suspect you will need more than signage to win your case. Some Judges are unaware of the nuances in signage and if you get one of those, you will lose even though your argument was lawfully sound.

 

We should be able to add several more strings to your bow to take into account the difference in knowledge of the various Judges.

 

Plus of course the lying people that run parking companies are quite capable of lying about what signs existed and when which could scupper your argument.

 

We look forward to helping you.