Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

thanks for the feedback.. the WS has been sent to the Court so it will have to do as it is.. I have changed my copy & highlighted the sentence so I can reiterate again..

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi all, just finished my Hearing.. Nothing owed to me by VCS so I WON the case.   Mr D from VCS stated he wanted to Appeal, then he withdrew the opportunity. VCS have 3 weeks to appeal so I

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

Posted Images

Tom, I just found this earlier today that you should add to your Court bundle .

 

It is the Airports Act 1986  which applies to nearly all airports  including Southend airports. 

 

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;

 

So it is there in black and white.

It is an Act of Parliament that far outranks any stupid VCS sign.

 

And it beggars belief that not only VCS but all other parking companies are unaware of the Act that covers just about every airport in Britain including all the ones covered by VCS. 

 

I think that that part of the Act is is damning that you should try and get the Court to include it in your WS.

You may get some leeway as you are a litigant in person.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the GDPR breach will be a nice follow up once Simple is seen off in court, that Airports Act being Statute just about kills Simon's pig and all Civil Claims he brought were founded on sand, shame people can't appeal that judgment en bloc, as that indicates egregious misrepresentation by PPC's,

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 all.. I have sent a copy of S63 as Exhibit 18 to the court and asked for it to be included in my Defence as it's an important Act Of Parliament that the Claimant should be aware of :-)

Not sent to VCS as I am waiting for the Court to confirm it's inclusion..

As for the GDPR... I have not mentioned that to the Court or VCS.. will save that for a surprise after..

 

Regards Tom

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice turn of phrase  Tom. Although perhaps it should have been  " that the claimant should have been aware of aware of" or more likely .."that the claimant was aware of".  I am sure that Judge would be grateful were it to be included since it would make his decision that much easier. 

When letting VCS know the you could mention GDPR breach and that ignorance of the Law is not an excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll rephrase that if I get the Chance on the call.. thanks.. good idea about the GDPR.. I have noted that down as well for my call.. and will send off to VCS as well once I hear back..

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent a copy of EXHIBIT 18 - Airports Act 1986, Part VI Miscellaneous and Supplementary ,Byelaws, 63. Airport Byelaws to the Court & VCS today for inclusion in my WS.

Also asked VCS to confirm receipt of my WS & this addendum so we don't get to the day and they say they never received them.

 

Not had an answer from the Court if they will accept it or not, so I didn't mention that fact..

 

Wanted to mention GDPR breach but I am going to save that for later,

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi all, just finished my Hearing.. Nothing owed to me by VCS so I WON the case.

 

Mr D from VCS stated he wanted to Appeal, then he withdrew the opportunity. VCS have 3 weeks to appeal so I may yet get a letter.

 

The WS "we" all put together was "Very Informative" the Judge said.

 

What swung the judge was that is was a Stopping Event, not a Parking Event.

 

I didn't make any counter claims as yet.. Will wait to see if an Appeal is forthcoming..

 

Just want to say a Big Thanks to all for your help. I do hope it's finally over. It was pretty Intense for a Layman!

 

Regards Tom

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
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***

Well done Tom....topic title updated to reflect the outcome.

 

Andy

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 The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news!👍👍👍 My case with them is due to next month. It'd be helpful if you could share your court experience and your case no.

 

Thanks!

Edited by WoodDD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb, another tolchocking for Simple Simon, with his no stopping parking events.

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
1 hour ago, Tom Price said:

What swung the judge was that is was a Stopping Event, not a Parking Event.

 

what angle was the judge looking at re: the 'no stopping'?

the fact that no stopping, is not under the RTA, Byelaws, or VCS T&C's...if you get what i mean..which one?

 

or simply that in whatever world...'stopping' cannot be considered 'parking' 

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

I am so pleased that you won. Sometimes you do all the hard work and the Judge picks on just one of the reasons and goes with it. As simple as that. Other times you really have to work at it especially with a Judge who is not as up to speed with differences between stopping and parking. So well done for going there and putting your case.  A well deserved outcome.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WoodDD said:

Great news!👍👍👍 My case with them is due to next month. It'd be helpful if you could share your court experience and your case no.

 

Thanks!

Hi.. I would like to give you the case number, but I am concerned about Disclosure as this reference if accessed will have all my personal details. Not sure if this would be accessible by anyone but a Judge etc... Hopefully, someone on this site may know..

 

Regards Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the comments.. I hope to get a transcription of the recording, but I don't know if that's possible. I have asked the Court so will see what comes back. This is an overview and may not be exact wording.. 

 

I'll add the highlights from what I understood.. [both Judge & Mr D were well into the legal jargon].. some of the more technical discussion was lost on me..

 

Opening Statements..

VCS......Events from Incident to Court summons.. pretty much the WS opening

Me........Night time, bad weather, bad visibility, children in danger walking on the road so "Signs" were not very clear

VCS......Pictures on their WS were in daylight. Picture of the car we very blurry due to the rain. VCS agreed it was bad..

Me........Kangaroo Court - Every drop down on the appeal site is an admission of some sort of guilt. Needs to be an "Other" in case your situation doesn.t match

Judge...Asked for clarification on POFA from VCS 

VCS......Explained POFA in his terms and what he understood

Judge...Was it a Parking event?

VCS......No, it was a Stopping event

Judge...Asked VCS who owns the land.. he didn't know so I told him Southend Council owns the freehold of the airport, but it has been leased since 1994 to London Southend Airport Company Limited

Judge...Surprised VCS didn't know that

Judge...Asked VCS if the Contract is relevant?

VCS......Yes, 

Judge...Still not clear

VCS......Quoted VCS v Ward & Idle.. 

Me........That's not in your WS so is it admissible?

Judge...That's not relevant in this case.. he had a quick look.

Judge...Is the land relevant

VCS......No real valid response, referred to VCS contract with the airport.

Me........Why is Mr Wasi the paralegal not here as he may know?

Judge...Section 46 refers to Parking/Waiting.

Me........It all refers to Parking.. and I was not parked or waiting.. ## I expect Simple will see this as a loophole so may change it ##

 

Closing Statements:

Me........VCS are aggressive in all their actions, as you can see by the Letters in their WS.. I also went through all the Arguments at a high level, such as Bye-Laws, Road Traffic Act [Public access etc.., the POFA discussed Parking, not Stopping, PO Box on the Signs, no address.

VCS......Pretty much same as the Opening statement as far as I remember.. 

 

Judge...  

Car was stopped for 30 seconds

Multiple Signs

The Driver "did" enter into a Contract as they entered the airport

But.... Does POFA apply

Needs distinction

Stopped not Parked

Only applies to Parking

Judge referred VCS to Jopson v Homeguard

👍  Defendant wins the case & is not obliged to pay VCS any money

 

Judge to VCS... do you want to Appeal

VCS.. Yes Sir................... but after 20 seconds he changed his mind to No Sir, no appeal at this time.. 

Judge to VCS... you have 3 weeks to appeal if you change your mind.

 

So.. VCS may appeal, but I had a feeling that he may have been tapped on the shoulder and advised to say No.. at the time..

 

 

### As far as I can remember, this is how it went down ###.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom, that will be very useful to others in a similar position.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they would be silly to appeal as a more forensic look at VCS MO and shenanigans could turn round and bite Simon on the bum.

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

@Tom Price

 

Thank you for your note, which is very helpful.

 

Did VCS cite the following cases?

 

1. VCS v Ward

2. Semark Jullien

 

VCS threw the two cases to me in the last minute at my previous hearing. The judge accepted the extra WS and adjourned my case for me to read/defend it. My case is going to be held on 30th March.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..

 

Hope this helps..

 

Regards Tom 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's in post 148.  Read from there to the end of the thread, as there were later comments which would have tweaked bits of the WS.

  • 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

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...