Jump to content


VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - double dipping - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ


Recommended Posts

:rockon:

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
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

To add a little more to your WS I have included an article on how to refute the extra £60  charge-   a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html   'It seem

+ there is no evidence the council stipulated any parking time restriction upon granting the initial planning consent, the normal free parking parking period being 2 or 3 hrs at such retail parks. Nor

Simon has A LOT of previous for starting court claims - even though he has no intention of actually going to court.   It's a numbers game.  It only takes two minutes for VCS to start court a

He's used the old try both hats to sue keeper, Or driver and added the Unicorn feed tax that the OPS judgment at Lewes CC ruled was abuse of process.

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

Entering the car park is not the acceptance of their terms. If its a pay carpark  then the payment is the acceptance. If there is no charge to park, then staying for longer then 15 minutes or so would be the acceptance.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for the silence, unfortunately I have one of those jobs that is busier in the current climate. I've done a fair bit of reading and have constructed the following which I was proposing to submit as my defence:

 

[1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2. It is denied that the Defendant parked continuously in St Mary's Gate Retail Park Car Park at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred.  

 

4. 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 simply 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.

 

5. The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public by way of an assignment from the proprietor to do the same and to make civil claims in their own name.

 

6. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has no authority or agency to do such therefore there can be no claim.

 

7. The Claimant has failed to show, upon request under CPR 31.14, any evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and signage under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

 

8. 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."]

 

Wasn't entirely sure if paragraph 4 or paragraphs 5-7 (or both) were a little superfluous, but I tend to be a bit 'belt and braces' at the best of times so comfortable removing if folks don't feel they add much/anything. 

 

One question I did have - is it best to file a defence early, right at the death or does it not really matter?

 

Any and all comments are gratefully received. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please wait for the experts to comment, but to me that reads more like a Witness Statement than a defence, although it could come in useful later.

 

Defences are normally short and don't give away too much detail in case the PPC can use that against you.

 

Have you looked at Success threads here for defences that people have used?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just tighten 4-7 into one sentence whereby you atleast mention authority, signs etc, don't expand upon what might be 'wrong' 

thats for the WS.

 

dx

 

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

Thanks both, how about:

 

[1. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2. It is denied that the Defendant parked continuously in St Mary's Gate Retail Park Car Park at the times mentioned in the Particulars. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

3. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred.  

 

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant and furthermore as the Claimant has failed to show any authority or agency to enter into contracts with the public or any evidence of planning permission for installation of cameras and signage the defendant contends that the Claimant has no authority or agency therefore there can be no claim.

 

5. 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.]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...

Open

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for once again waking this thread, but it appears we're off to court (unless VCS don't pay the fee by 26 May).

 

I'll be doing my homework and submitting my defence for comment, but just wanted to ask an immediate q please.

 

The papers state the judge wants to deal with this by papers, which I understand to mean neither party attends, but we submit all evidence and the judge makes a decision.

Do I want this or do I want to be there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you either want a zoom meeting or in person for sure!

else simple simon WILL file a load of BS in his WS which you can't counter in person or in your WS. (you've already filed your defence!)

 

what date must your exchange WS's?

 

scan up the order please to PDF

  • Like 1

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
On 15/04/2020 at 13:05, holmer444 said:

I have screenshots of the Google maps data from my phone which shows that I was in town from 11.16 to 11.47 then drove home, then drove back to town, arriving at 14.33 and leaving for the second time at 15.01, driving home again.

 

So either I was in my car and it wasn't in the car park when they say it was or I was in another car and not driving my car, hence they can only pursue me under keeper liability, which they can't do as their original PCN is more than 14 days after the date they allege the 'contravention'.

 

the above.

NTK outside of 14 days

double dipping.

no such thing as 1hrs free only.

 

all will kill this claim dead.

  • Like 1

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

we will also need aLL of the exhibits..

 

other notes.

the contract was for 3yrs in 2011

there is no proof the client has paid VCS in the 2021 season nor the contract can simply roll by default past 2014..

 

what a stupid comment for his latest wally, Mr Wali, a supposed paralegal since their last one ran out the door in oct 2020 to make...(sic) this case could hinge on the weight of a single feather that tips the scales'....:crazy: i can see him soon leaving like the rest once he sees what crap simon is leading him into here.

  • Like 1

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've just had a quick skim through Simple Simon's WS, and the repetitive tripe he normally sends out is, well, repeated even more than usual.  It's like watching grass grow.  I'll read the whole lot properly this evening.

 

You need to start drafting your WS, concentrating on the points dx has pointed out.  The fact you've got Simon's statement first gives you the advantage.

 

Simon always pretends the Unicorn Food Tax is added because the company doesn't normally deal with legal matters ... yet right at the start Mr Wally states he is employed by the company as a paralegal!   

  • 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

More  cut  ';n pastery by Simon's mob Beavis out of context again, and the unenforceable leave the site and get a ticket with all the GDPR implications of that.

  • 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

Apologies will get the other exhibits scanned when I can, it was mainly pictures of the car park at night and print outs of the signage (one below). 

 

One other q if I may, I have the completed N159 which I'll look to get posted this weekend (I have until 26 May), presume it's okay to send with the standard proof of posting I've used previously?

Signage.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye gods, Simon/Wally's point 5 repeated again at 17, 52 & 55.  Point 8 at 56.  23 at 54.  29 at 53.  The feather drivel 28 and again 51.  Yawn. 

 

Interesting that they have held their hands up and admitted their tripe is not POFA compliant.

 

Plus they have lost the OP's reply to the LBA, or alternatively don't want to show the judge they knew it was double dipping as the OP told them but they went ahead and started a court case anyway..

 

  • 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
  • 2 weeks later...

Apologies for the delay, please see below for my first draft at a witness statement (I've removed personal data if there are gaps that maybe don't make sense), any and all comments welcome:

 

In the county court at Claim No:

Between

Vehicle Control Services Limited

(Claimant)

V

(Defendant)

Witness Statement

Introduction

1.       I am the named defendant in this matter and I assert that I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed or any amount at all.

2.       Except where specifically stated or admitted, no other element of this claim is admitted; the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of every element of its claim.

3.       It is not admitted that the defendant either directly or indirectly or whether by conduct express or consent entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant to pay any parking charge or amount.

Locus Standi

4.       Exhibit 1 is a screenshot from Google Maps. This shows the Defendant’s movements on the 24 December 2019.

5.       Exhibit 1 shows the Defendant visited The Moor from 11.16 to 11.47 then returned to their place of residence arriving at 12:09pm where they remained until 14:09.

6.       Exhibit 1 later shows that the Defendant visited The Moor for a second time from 14:33 to 15:01.

7.       The Claimant in production AA1 of their WS presents Signage Artwork, this signage states

‘Maximum Stay 1 Hour

Commencing on Entry

-          No return within 2 hours’

8.       Therefore, either the Defendant was parked in the car park in line with the stated rules; or the Defendant was not driving the car at the time in question and can only be pursued under keeper liability.

9.       The Claimant in paragraph 25 of the Witness Statement (WS) acknowledges they did not comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA 2012), whereby as the notice to keeper was issued by post, paragraph 9, sub-paragraph (4 and 5) allows the claimant 14 days to deliver to that address. The issue date on the notice to keeper was 9 January, 16 days after the alleged contravention occurred.

10.   Exhibit 2 is a screenshot of paragraph 9 of the POFA 2012, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 have been highlighted. Sub-paragraph 4 (b) states that if the Notice to Keeper is sent by post it must be delivered to that address within the relevant period. Sub-paragraph 5 states that the relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph 4 is the period of 14 days beginning with the days after that on which the specified period of parking ended

11.   Exhibit 3 is the Notice to Keeper issued by the Claimant, this shows an issue date of 9 January, as this is 16 days after the date the alleged contravention occurred the Notice to Keeper was issued outside of POFA 2012 and is therefore is not valid and unenforceable.

12.   The Claimant, in paragraph 27 states

‘The Defendant has failed to respond to these Notices and therefore the Claimant has pursued the Defendant as the liable party’

13.   Exhibit 4 is a letter dated 16 April 2020 sent to the Claimant upon receipt of their correspondence titled ‘Letter Before Action’. Exhibit 5 is proof of postage obtained when the letter was posted, also dated 16 April 2020.

14.   At no point did the Claimant acknowledge this letter nor investigate the Defendants claim that the vehicle registered was not parked at the times the alleged contravention occurred.  

 

Signage

15.   The Claimant in paragraph 34 of the WS states

‘Following their appointment, the Claimant erected warning notices throughout the development’

A search of the Sheffield City Council planning portal shows no planning permission having been granted allowing sign to be erected at the address of the site referenced in the contract (exhibit MW1 in the Claimant’s WS. The lack of planning permission makes the erection of these signs illegal and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence in this case.  

 

Contract

16.   The Claimant in paragraph 35 of the WS states a contract between Vehicle Control Services and Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust c/o Jones Lang LaSelle (evidence ref: MW1) as proof the Claimant has authority to implement a parking scheme.

17.   Furthermore the Claimant acknowledges that this contracts has been in effect from 7 November 2011.

18.   In Paragraph 2 of item MW1 the contract states

‘The Company will provide a parking control service at the Car Park for a fixed period of 36 months from the 7th day of November 2011

19.   The contract does not state that it can roll past 2014 by default nor is their proof that Scottish Widows Investment Property Trust paid the Claimant in 2021 making the contract null and void.

 

Conclusion

20.   The Defendant was not parked at the site at the times of the alleged contravention.

21.   The Claimant cannot rely on POFA 2012 to pursue the Defendant under Keeper Liability as they failed to serve the Notice to Keeper in the prescribed timescale.

22.   The Claimant has ignored correspondence from the Defendant and pursued legal action they are unable to substantiate.

23.   The Claimant has failed to provide evidence they sought planning permission for the erection of signs on the site.

24.   The Claimant has failed to provide a compliant contract demonstrating authority or a chain of authority to manage parking on the Land.

25.   The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claim is entirely without merit and therefore it is requested that the Claim is struck out and the case dismissed with any legal costs of the Defendant being reimbursed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have done a lot of research - well done!

 

I think the individual points are superb.  However, they need to be grouped together in a more logical order.  Will get on to it later today when time permits.

  • 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

Thanks Dave, it felt wordy and long as I wrote it, but to an aspiring layman like me all 'legal stuff'always does seem wordy and long 🤣

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...