Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They are very nonsensical aren’t they? As far as I can tell they have no proof of ownership of debt whatsoever - it feels like they’re just hoping I cave in 🙈   I’ll get onto the CRA’s now - thank you 😊 
    • Thanks ...okay well as you are already aware you will get more sense out of your bin than talking to Arrow...so I would now escalate it by informing the Credit Reference agencies and submit a Notice of Correction ( each CRA has its own instruction's on how  to submit) and they will contact Arrow asking for details of the debt....if that fails you can contact the ICO (information Commissioner's Office) and raise a complaint re false data reporting.     See how you get on.
    • I have a sense that you haven't been reading around because if you had been you would have seen lots of draft particulars particulars of claim and lots of explanation about what is necessary. Are you familiar with all the arguments? Are you familiar with all the steps needed to take a small claim in the County Court? Maybe you should hold back for a day or two while you do some serious reading on this forum. We've got all the information here. We got the benefit of the experience of lots of people doing exactly what you are trying to do. If you stop for a moment and do the reading around you will feel very confident and empowered   I'm afraid this also confirms my view that you simply haven't done any reading at all of the sub- forum. This point comes up again and again with Hermes and there is a very simple answer to it which I have repeated in other people's threads so often that I don't think I'm going to go into it again here. Please spend the next day reading and you will soon find the answers to your questions. Once again, it will make you more confident and more empowered
    • Just to clarify, am I on solid ground stating the defendant lost the parcel, when parcel2go are the broker for myhermes and it's parcel2go who I'm challenging?   Thanks. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - no stopping - London Southend Airport ***Claim Dismissed***


Recommended Posts

That's a prohibition so it is sir, but the signs are not prohibitive except that the defendant stopped in contravention of the non prohibitive signs.

As Simple does his own cases and the Paralegal wrote the WS, and wants to send a representative on what will be a Zoom hearing, that's an egregious request and deffo abuse of Process, as the paralegal who signed the WS doesn't have to leave the office.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airp

It doesn't matter if the new ByeLaws have been adopted yet. The important thing is that it is clear that the airport roads are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws  which confounds the VC

I have posted on WoodDD's thread a very comprehensive WS. You will need to find other good WS'salso  probably in the successful wins on the Stikky on the first page on the private Motoring section as

Posted Images

Thanks for all the feedback.. I'll add the suggestions to my WS and repost by next weekend.. I plan to send it no later that the first week of Feb as I don't want it to be late.

 

Just need to work out where to insert the extra bits.

 

Regards Tom

 

Thanks again for all your feedback.. although my WS is seemingly large, I am hoping the first 4 pages will Swing it straight away.. I do believe all the references the Judge needs are there..

 

As always, your valuable feedback is more than welcome. I have incorporated various feedback I have received along the way, and especially the latest.. Luv it!

 

Regards Tom..

 

 

Witness Statement - Redact - Draft v1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've been thinking this for a while regarding simon and these money making schemes that are not enforceable that he conned loads of seaports and airports to sign up to across the land whereby they already have byelaws covering the activity of motor vehicles upon their lands enforceable by a magistrate.

 

i think its about time we upped the anti another notch and we begin to stop referring to his signs as 'signs', but now use the term of 'advertising posters' and link that to dropping in the term 'after 10mins the driver by default is automictically enrolled in the moneymaking scheme'

 

these schemes are akin too... say a free sample of a face cream popup on facebook whereby one accepts the free gift, only to find that if you don't cancel within 30days you've automictically signed up at an extortionate rate, to receive a jar of the cream every month for a year.

 

just musing.

 

• The signage is prohibitive in nature and not a genuine offer of terms for parking for the motorist to consider. 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Change Zoom to Online as Zoom is only one platform, and they might use another, it has become the accepted terminology, but best not to refer to a specific platform.  Otherwise looks good The rteal devil of Simon's claim is that he is trying to imply a contract that depends on a Prohibition for Consideration, And its one sided as the person he is binding has no benefit from the contract, apart from paying £100 for the privilege of stopping however briefly.  a nanosecond, a minute 30 minutes kerching that'll be £100 or else.  Simon has also invoiced cars stopped at a Zebra crossing with people crossing at an airport.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Brass.. got rid of Zoom as suggested..

 

dx100uk.. that's a great suggestion, but perhaps after I win this one we can go after his terminology :-)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread.

I have an awful lot going on.

 

I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.  

 

https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf

 

If you go to Section 5  the headline reads

5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:

 

In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.

 

Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy.

It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there. 

 

So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.

 

This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.

  

The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive. 

 

You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said 

 

If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.

 

The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all.

This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.

 

It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.

 

All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway.

If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”

 

And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Dave.. thanks lookinforinfo.. I gave myself some time so more peeps could look & offer guidance :-)

 

Excellent.. I'll make the adjustments this week and will be sending off on Monday 1st Feb..

 

Regards

 

Agreed Dave.. thanks lookinforinfo.. I gave myself some time so more peeps could look & offer guidance :-)

 

Quick question.. the 2020 Byelaws say proposed so not sure if they are current.. if you go to this site, the current Byelaws are a different version?

 

Airport Byelaws - London Southend Airport - Entry Page

Current Byelaws

 

Picture form the Main Page..

image.png.947afb9bbaa3e945ac16c6a803e28104.png

Just don't want to give these shysters any room to manoeuvre.

 

I'll make the adjustments this week and will be sending off on Monday 1st Feb..

 

Regards

 

I have added this detail as point 18 :-)

 

You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in

Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said 

etc...etc..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That case should help for sure, the current bylaws will have a similar statement or paragraph in there regarding |RTA and Bylaws

The current Byelaws don't allow Simple to do anything Under heading Prohibited Acts 13 (a) covers it and is liable toa £100 penalty actionable by a Police Constable, or Airport Official,  as indicated under Penalties, so the airport road won't be Relevant Land, regardless of his sign, Simple can't say his spycar driver is an Airport Official, as they can't do anything regarding other airport transgressions other than perking in the car park they infest.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't matter if the new ByeLaws have been adopted yet. The important thing is that it is clear that the airport roads are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws  which confounds the VCS WS   

 

It is not relevant land so PoFA does not apply especially  Keeper Liability. They put you to strict proof that the land is not relevant which this does and  possibly makes their WS perjurious on that alone since they say that the Byelaws are not compulsory. Wali is the naive one if he thinks that keeper liability exists in this case.

 

Dont expect  Wali  [aka Wally] to turn up. You could also point out that VCS are by charging motorists for "offences"  are potentially taking money from the Treasury since that is where any fines collected from ByeLaws go -to the Exchequer- not those grubby oiks at VCS

 

The Bull case points out more than clearly that No stopping is not a contract and even if it were, unless the road in front was a straight road with no traffic, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, stray animals, broken down vehicles, etc etc. no motorist could accept it as a contract because of all the reasons I just mentioned where they would have to stop- some of them by Law. You can see in one of their photos that there is a pedestrian crossing which is covered by Law.

 

There is a lot to go through here but should help

The WS is so much rubbish and over repetitive and inaccurate.

 

But going through his points 

7] the paralegal is confusing No Stopping signs with No Parking signs-they are totally different

8] no stopping is NOT a contract

9] no motorist could accept that "contract"

10]   & 11]  it is not a parking sign and once again it is not a contractual  clause

12] it is not a parking charge and there is no breach because it is not relevant land

13] you were stopping not parking-more obfuscating

14] to 19] more about PoFA which doesn't apply

20] 21] 7&22] the land is covered by Byelaws so not relevant land and the byelaws are definitely to be observed and the cases quoted were covering land before PoFA was introduced and therefore irrelevant and misdirectional

23]  24] 25] & 26]while the landowners do have the right to decide who comes on their land they do not have the right to allow VCS to overrule statutory controls and impose charges an land that is not relevant

27] -30] Byelaws are NOT  arbitrary especially in this case. It does not matter what the airport authorities and VCS hammer out, the land is not relevant land . End of.

31] the defendant is not claiming the car park signage is prohibitive  misdirection. He said the no stopping sign was prohibitive which it is but it is not a contractual sign .

32] & 33] the WS is misdirecting again. There is no comparison with NO stopping which is prohibitive and PE V Beavis which is a car park on relevant land

34]  &35]  ****Very Important***** even if PoFA was relevant here the code number that you breached  ie Code 46 
(46) PARKING/WAITING ON A ROADWAY WHERE STOPPING IS PROHIBITTED   you were not parking nor waiting. You were stopped so no offence was committed.  Wally even says in 35] that you were stopped not parked, not waiting but stopped. 

 

45] once again irrelevant. They are comparing a no stopping  non contractual incident on not relevant land with Beavis where a contract had been established and PoFA was in force. There is a big difference between no stopping and no parking. You may know of Jopson v Homeguard-if not look it up and include a copy to the Court since Wally seems unable to differentiate the two

 

You have got everything else covered already in your WS  But you could say that their case is so abysmal that it should not even manage to get to Court.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11: Its NOT a car park so how can it be a parking Incident.

 

As POFA not relevant, once Simon  fets tolchocked it would be possible to sue for breach of GDPR falsely applying for keeper Data  they were not entitled to, but that is for later .

  • Like 1

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the in-depth reviews & feedback everyone. I am sure this will help a lot of people out, as well as my own case.

 

lookinforinfo.. do you suggest I add your points to my WS or just keep them as a reference if the Lackey mentions any of the points..

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it would be a hassle to put all that in.

 

However certain things that help your case and destroy their WS would probably mean that even Simple Simon, as stupid and greedy as he is, would probably decide that yours was one case that he did not want to challenge in Court. If he lost on the relevant land part, his whole business at Southend airport would be over. 

 

He would have many motorists who have paid coming back to him plus claiming GDPR payments and every other airport that they control would probably have a claim against him too.. So you are best to hit him with a strong WS to stop him from going to Court. Will it stop him if you include all that. It should do but he may have the chutzpah to think that he can argue his way out of it. 

 

So your choice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback

 

I will add those points in a paragraph [removing the references aka wally etc.. although I would like to keep them in.. lol] as they are very valuable points to argue.. it may make VCS think about how they can't reverse there submitted WS..

 

I have added Jopson v Homeguard to my WS as well

 

I do believe the so called Paralegal won't turn up and perhaps pass to Mr Plucky... FFS...

 

Funny that on Mr Wali's Linkedin Profile, he left Excel Parking in June and hasn't updated his profile to VCS.. Makes me wonder if these guys are all made up and all Simple Simon!!

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohammed-wali-3ab8b8175/?originalSubdomain=uk.. FYI.. if you have a LinkedIn profile he will know you have checked him out!.

 

I haven't as yet, but may click on SImple a few times as well..as he has a Profile..

 

Regards

Edited by Tom Price
Link to post
Share on other sites

Same office he just shifted his jive-ass and chair to another desk.  Excel and VCS same Company Simon has lost inb court confused by what hat he had on when he issued the claim.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it would be a hassle to put all that in. However certain things that help your case and destroy their WS would probably mean that even Simple Simon as stupid and greedy as he is, would probably decide that yours was one case that he did not want to challenge in Court. If he lost on the relevant land part, his whole business at Southend airport would be over. 

 

He would have many motorists who have paid coming back to him plus claiming GDPR payments and every other airport that they control would probably have a claim against him too..

 

So you are best to hit him with a strong WS to stop him from going to Court.

Will it stop him if you include all that.

It should do but he may have the chutzpah to think that he can argue his way out of it. 

So your choice.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added the attached [Arguments] So my first 6 pages should hit home, especially with the judge.. Its a big document, but hopefully he wont need to go past Exhibit 06. After that, its all downloaded cases &  etc..but all relevant if he needs them..

 

 

Arguments.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 9 ( no motorist could accept that argument] should probably be widened out to explain why. There could be pedestrian crossings and traffic lights further down the road which may force the motorist to stop. Scould stray animals in the road, vehicles u-turning, emergency vehicles passing and police directions to stop, punctures, other mechanical problems, accidents etc etc

 

Also in 46] you haven't altered Wally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame I can't leave 1 insult in there.. remove Wally & added as suggested:

 

There could be pedestrian crossings and traffic lights further down the road which may
force the motorist to stop. Stray animals in the road, vehicles u-turning, emergency
vehicles passing and police directions to stop, punctures, other mechanical problems,
accidents etc etc:

 

 

Thanks again..

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WS sent to Simple & his lawyers..

 

Just want to say thanks again for all your time & input.. I will post feedback along the way, good or bad...  :-)

 

The WS is the same as posted, apart from all the extra suggestions & bits added since post 127..

 

Regards Tom

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tom Price said:

WS sent to Simple & his lawyers..

 

Just want to say thanks again for all your time & input.. I will post feedback along the way, good or bad...  :-)

 

The WS is the same as posted, apart from all the extra suggestions & bits added since post 127..

 

Regards Tom

 

 

I'll post up the completed WS this week....

 

I see also that VCS have copied in everything to ELMS Legal.. not seen them mentioned anywhere..

ELMS Legal Ltd is a highly experienced court advocacy, litigation and debt recovery firm based in Sleaford, Lincolnshire that specialise in many niche areas such as parking law..

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tom Price said:

I have posted the Final Draft as sent to VCS.

 

I see also that VCS have copied in everything to ELMS Legal.. not seen them mentioned anywhere..

 

ELMS Legal Ltd is a highly experienced court advocacy, litigation and debt recovery firm based in Sleaford, Lincolnshire that specialise in many niche areas such as parking law..

 

Witness Statement - Redact - Draft v2-Final_Redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bit on prohibition, defendant should have been driver.

At this point Simon will chuck all he can into the pot, whether he has a right to copy them in to everything is another point, if they were the DCA he used as a threat  lever  as in you might get a letter with a final offer to pay maybe a reduced sum to settle for maybe 75% of the sum claimed, to avoid the unpleasentness of a case Simon is bound to win  they might mention several of the cases their paralegal has used in the WS to bolster the seriousness of the situation they say you are in. and the effect of the resultant CCJ

 

Others will post their take on it no doubt.

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi brassnecked.. I really hope this is your sense of humour or sarcasm.. or both :-)... not had any offers as yet..

 

Any other comments or more of the above, welcome of course

 

Rgds Tom

Edited by Tom Price
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done for redoing the WS.

In S8 of your statement I would replace "It is also subject to ...."

with "Where the roads are not subject to the RTA it is quite clear that they are then covered by airport Byelaws so Sch 4 of PoFA obviously cannot apply.  It follows that there can be no keeper liability. I am unsure why VCS do not find this clear......................

 

You are trying to rubbish their WS both to strengthen your case and to get across the message that VCS do not want to appear in Court with you.

And if that is not enough you were stopped, not Parking nor Waiting as their PCN claims.

 

BN was not joking   they quite often come up with an offer before Court.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Andyorch changed the title to VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - no stopping - London Southend Airport ***Claim Dismissed***

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...