VCS Claim - Berkeley centre - landowner contract?

[lookinforinfo]

Rotarion,

the Regulations don't specify a length of time.

But usually for a car park with multiple shops  Councils normally go for 3 hours.

 

Now it may be that in this case, they agreed to two free hours [and I am being generous in assuming that VCS actually applied for any sort of permission].

 

Once they agreed to a set time, in order to change the time conditions, VCS would have to reapply to the Council for permission to change.

 

I would think it was unlikely that VCS applied and just as unlikely that the Council would agree. However if there was an application, the Council would have had to confirm the change and that is definitely what you should be asking for. 

 

I haven't seen their permission for the two hour session so if you haven't either, you would be within your rights to suggest that they don't even have the original permission and put them to strict proof.

 

If they do have it, then you follow up with the amendment to the time. If they haven't got it, then there was no need to pay and their signs are illegal.

 

That means that VCS cannot form a contract with motorists since the signs should not be there. It also calls into question their WS where they say that they have fully complied with the ATA. If that is ahem

"inaccurate", not only is that perjury, but raises doubts about the rest of their WS.

 

They are not likely to claim trespass as only the owner can sue for that. It was alluded to in the VCS v Ibbotson that I posted which is why I showed it.

 

I have to say that I was surprised that they mentioned trespass in their WS which is what you may have done if there is actually a charge for the second hour.

 

I can see no reason why you cannot add it since your WS is not due til tomorrow. Don't forget to tell VCS as well as the Court.

[Rotarion]

Thanks for the tips

Have added three new points:

 

1. On further examination of the IPC Code of Conduct, clause 23.1 states that “If an Operator is issuing Parking Charges on land which is not owned by them, they must have written permission from the Landowner to operate on the Private Land”. VCS is clearly in breach of this Code of Conduct, which it relies on to legitimise many points. Also the fact that the Claimant has claimed to have fully complied with this code of conduct where it has been proved that they have not, calls into question the reliability and consistency of the rest of their Witness statement.

    

2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has planning permission granted by Sheffield council to display signs as required by The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 Part 1 Para 4 :

“No advertisement may be displayed unless consent for its display has been granted—

 

(a)by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on an application in that behalf (referred to in these Regulations as “express consent”); “

 

 

1. If no proof can be offered that permission was given by the council to display the signs in this car park, then they are illegally displayed, and no contract could be formed based on them. When such permission is granted, this is often subject to a free parking period being offered. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that they received written permission to change the parking period from 2 hours to 1 hour by Sheffield Council.

[lookinforinfo]

you might have included the bit about trespassing too though the Judge might have thought that you were showing off had you included it. 

 

You should have enough to perhaps deter VCS from going to Court at all.

 

Shame they are not using Gladstones as they have been under investigation by the SRA for forging documents allegedly.

[Rotarion]

Thanks - I've not submitted this supplementary WS yet. Can I just confirm this point please?

 

£100 cost is a consideration for breach of contract, according to their para 45.

Then their para 53 says "terms of license having been broken by the Driver at that point becomes a trespasser and so liable to the Charge."

 

If I become a tresspasser, shouldn't it be a fine that I'm paying ,not a consideration due for breach of contract terms? Are they conflating two independent reasons to charge me and calling it a single charge??

 

 

On Trespassing, something like:

 

Paras 45 and 53 Consideration or Fine for trespass

1. In para 45, the £100 cost is claimed to be consideration for a breach of contract. In para 53, it is claimed the Driver is liable to the charge because they are a trespasser. VCS cannot issue proceedings for tresspass as they are not the land owner.

[brassnecked]

Trespass is a Crime, they cannot charge you a Fine for Trespass,   has to be for Breach os a contract, Trespass is for Landowner.

[lookinforinfo]

You have many reasons why you are not liable for their PCN-trespass being only one.

The more reasons you have the greater the chance that any Judge would find at least one that he would have to find in your favour.

 

It may also be that VCS would decide not to go ahead with your case though they leave it to the last minute.

 

VCS have already been hammered by a Judge in the Ibbotoson case for trespass so it is definitely worth stating it and that may well decide VCS not to go to Court at all.

 

Taking you to Court when another Judge has already roughed them up for trying to sue Ibbotson for trespass when they had no mandate to do so.

 

[brassnecked]

Here is the judgment in the Ibbottson Case, its worth a read and digesting what is said about Contract, The Judge warned VCS that if they carried on in a similar manner they might end up in Jail. Delicious.

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

[ericsbrother]

You can be sued for trespass, criminal trespass is treated differently.

 

With trespass the landowner can only sue for his actual loss

- so how much damage did your car do to his car park by being there longer than allowed in a contract? - Well, I reckon the wear and tear of the surface wil be eactly the same .

 

so it is then down to loss of income. was the car park absolutely full? no? then no loss.

 

This is why judges like to keep away from trespass matters and have decided that if the signage is good enough then the offer of a contract was accepted.

 

At this site the signage isnt good enough and the parking co doenst have the authority they claim. ram those points home rather than risk a loss.

 

This doesnt mean you shouldnt mention trespass but you will need to be clear hpw that applies to your case and it is easier for the "no parking" or "permit holders only" claims because of the lack of a universal offer.

[Rotarion]

Hi All,

My case was postponed until the 18th so I was waiting for a judgement,

it's not going to be heard in person, only on the papers.

 

I've just received a letter from the courts stating,

"I am not satisfied reading the Defendants 2 letters undated but received by the court on 13 may 2020 that they have sent to the claimant copies of their statements.

They are direted to send evidence that they have done so or to confirm that they have not."

 

Now I sent one bundle to both the courts and VCS on the 12th May, in person with hard copies.

Then I updated my bundle slightly with the new (gladly received info!) above and just emailed in the copies to the courts and VCS when I found out I didn't have to print everything out.

 

I have a physical receipt from VCS for the 12th May bundle, and only have my email as evidence for the bundle I sent 13th May.

 

I think I'm going to attach these with a covering letter and send them in, is it the same email address?

 

[email protected]

Thanks all,

Stay safe!

R

[dx100uk]

put the case number in the subject line.

 

the evidence was sent to both the court and VCS email addresses on the same date

[Rotarion]

Yep all done thank you,

we'll see what happens.

R

[lookinforinfo]

Rotarion you have a couple of very good points to win your case should it go to Court. I have come across this Act which may convince them to drop your case like a hot potato.

Here is the website

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents/made

 

If you look at Misleading actions section 5 [1] [2] and [3] then they are at fault  since they know that the contract is in the name of Excel so VCS has no contract-totally misleading. 

They have signed with IPC that they agree to comply with the Code of Conduct but they haven't since no planning permission.

this is a more serious Act than the Town and Country and carries jail snetences and/ or fines so I would imagine that they would not want the Court to see that. 

If you cannot now submit it then on the day when you mention ,the faults you advise the Court of the breach of the Act but I would send in a letter to the Court now explaining their breaches and of course you want 1[VCS to know if you want to avoid going to Court.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

[ericsbrother]

I would press for a telephone hearing rather than have the matter decided on the papers.

The VCS/Excel matter has been found to be 2 separate companies with no ties despite Simon owing both so that menas no locus standi for VCS as the offer of parking is from Excel.

The planning matter is a criminal one but unfortunatley there are no fibes etc but it does mean you cant enter into a criminal compact with VCS.

Bit like I cant sue you for not murdering my mother in law when you agreed to

 

Quoting the case number, court number and reasons in the post on here about the same site earlier this year wil do you more good than most small points you can now find. A judge will have to find very good reason to go against the decision of another judge and they do like consistency.

Edited June 26, 2020 by ericsbrother

[lookinforinfo]

I agree with EB that under Council Planning regs. there doesn't appear to be much in the way of fines handed out when the parking companies breach them.

 

However that is not the case with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations .

Viz section5 [3]   

it concerns any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with, if—

(i)the trader indicates in a commercial practice that he is bound by that code of conduct, and

(ii)the commitment is firm and capable of being verified and is not aspirational.

 

To qualify for being able to apply for data from the DVLA they agree to the Code of Conduct that they comply with all necessary legal requirements.  To confirm they do and then ignore Code should mean that they should not be allowed to access the DVLA especially as it is not uncommon for them to fail to get planning permission from the Council in their car parks.

 

Also by stating that as a sister company of Excel allows then to sue under their own name when they cannot breaches

section 5 [2] [a] and [     

A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

 

It is pretty obvious that if motorists knew that they were not liable to pay anything  to VCS they would not have paid them.

 

Suing under their name as opposed to Excel should mean they also breach  section 8 [a] and         

Offences relating to unfair commercial practices

8.—(1) A trader is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he knowingly or recklessly engages in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of professional diligence under regulation 3(3)(a); and

(b)the practice materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product under regulation 3(3)(b).

       

[ericsbrother]

You need to also find the correct part of companis law that they breach by pretending the 2 companies are linked when they are not. Having the same owner is not a link, they ahve separate listings. If one was a subsidiary of the other then it could be argued that a contract exists between the 2 or that aone may enter into an agreement with the landowner and the other have the right to assignment of that agreement without going back to the landlord.

this doesnt apply and a judge has told them this before bu they copntinue to argue that they are one and the same when it suits them but they are happy to be separate when it comes to tax and debt liability

[brassnecked]

This one on Prankster might help the initial argument regarding any relationship between the two suing interchangeably

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/vehicle-control-services-have-no-right.html