VCS Claim - Berkeley centre - landowner contract?

[Rotarion]

Hi All,

I've got a WS and evidence bundle to put in by wednesday. My main thread is here:

forums dot moneysavingexpert dot com /discussion/6082400/claim-form-from-vcs

 

So I've just got a quick question. re this thread:

I was wondering if @Legggy or someone might be able to DM me with the claim number that was dismissed on the grounds of the contract being 2 hours please?

 

I assume no-one has a copy of the actual parts of the contract that stipulate 2 hours. As the one linked above does not.

 

Thanks,

R

[BankFodder]

I think the best thing you can do is to tell your own story here independently and see what people have to say. You might find it interesting to compare the responses here with the responses you get elsewhere.

[Rotarion]

Sure -

I received the classic LBA from Vehicle Control Services Ltd around sept last year for staying in the Berkeley Centre Car Park, Sheffield. Staying for 102 minutes, falsely believing the max stay to be 2 hours, as it used to be.

I'm defending as the keeper of the vehicle under POFA

My defence is a combination of

1. T+Cs don't specify a PCN will be issued for failure to purchase a ticket
2. Signs leading to and within show Excel Parking Services Ltd logo and legal address, claim has been brought by Vehicle Control Services Ltd, therefore VCS is stranger to contract
3. Claimant put to proof that it has proprietary interest in the land
4. Change in max time allowed without making it clear on signs is "predatory behaviour" against IPC CoP
5. Long defence on arbitrary fixed sum of £60 added is double recovery and abuse of process

Can I just ask a dumb question? What's the difference between my defence and WS? Can I add new arguments to WS referring to new evidence?

 

I was hoping to add the new evidence that the contract between landowner and VCS stipulates two hours.

 

Many thanks,

R

Edited May 9, 2020 by Rotarion

[BankFodder]

Others will be along with questions and advice which specifically address your situation.

However, the defence would be a document which simply addresses their claim point by point. That's all you have to do with a defence. The claim will make certain assertions of the existence of a duty and that you breached the duty and that damage was caused as a result et cetera.

You will simply have to address each point in saying either that you agree – sure that you don't agree and that they've got it wrong – or that you don't agree and you want them to prove what they say.

A witness statement is in a way more generalised. This is where you give your own version of events which may well address issues which haven't been raised or noticed by the claimant.

Does that help?

[Rotarion]

Yeah that clears it up somewhat thanks!

 

My WS is below if anyone's interested and can possibly give any comment please! Defence is also attached

I haven't mentioned abuse of process with the double recovery attempt. Mention that too?

Also the evidence bundle from VCS was sent to my service address, due to a complicated situation I had it sent to me 5 days ago, but bc royal mail have slowed down I've not received it yet and I'm due to drive back to my service address tomorrow to start working again on monday! As a result I probably won't be able to see what's in that bundle before I submit my WS. Is there anything I can do? Go in to the courts or VCS's office on Monday and request another bundle? I work right next to their office!

1. I am xxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter and keeper of the vehicle of registration [REG NO], I will say as follows:

 

1. The car park in this matter, the BERKELEY CENTRE CAR PARK (“the car park”) in Sheffield, has historically provided 2 hours free parking. Some time before the supposed contravention date of 25/07/2019 this 2 hours free parking was reduced to 1 hour free parking. A fact that is not reflected on the signs at the entrance to the car park, as shown in [CD REFERENCE]. The sign only mentions a “pay car park” and “maximum 2 hours stay”, which to an unscrupulous driver would not imply any change in car parking rules from before.

 

1. The driver stayed, according to ANPR, in the car park for 102 minutes [CD REFERENCE (gdpr p15)]

 

1. As the keeper, I then received a number of harassing letters [CD REFERENCE gdpr pgs 11-17] which claimed I’d contravened the car parking rules. I believed these letters originally to be incorrectly sent, knowing the car park in question offered 2 hours free, and seeing that the duration of stay of 102 minutes was below this limit.

 

1. I don’t believe that the new signs make it sufficiently clear that there has been any change in car parking rules. Please see the old entrance sign here [CD REFERENCE], and the new entrance sign here [CD REFERENCE]. There is no substantial difference in the information offered on these that would imply any changes to the rules.

 

1. The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in the signs within and around the car park [CD REFERENCE]. The logo and legal address for “Excel Parking Services Ltd” is prominently displayed. Therefore, any contract that would be entered into must be with “Excel Parking Services Ltd” and not “Vehicle Control Services Ltd”

2. Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.

3. Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant.

4. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.

5. As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.

6. It is denied that the defendant entered into a contract with the claimant

 

 

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

Signed

Date

 

defence.pdf

[dx100uk]

looks all good to me.

 

dx

 

[Gick]

'Unscrupulous driver' ?

 

[dx100uk]

shame you filed that kitchen sink defence mind

 

dx

 

[ericsbrother]

plenty of other Berkeley centre threads to pick through going back years. Also read up about thsi site on the parking pranksters blogspot. Alex hasnt posted therwe for a while but it does contain a number of case reference numbers.

Give enough detail and VCS will realise they ahve been rumbled again and be forced to drop the claim at the last moment or suffer a possible costs order for unreasonable behaviour

[Rotarion]

Yeah I'm reading anniebattle's thread - it's a long one!

 

They've said they're now claiming the damages from me as the driver. As I sent a letter to my MP, in which I apparently claimed I was the driver. So I guess I can't rely on POFA against the £60 extra sum.

 

I was also going to defend the fact that the contract is between a land management agency and not landowner. The attached documents are their claim to the contrary. 

 

PDF of landowner contract attached, PDF of claimant's defence of landowner contract also attached.

Landowner_defence is all the paras claiming they have right to claim even though there's no chain of authority from landowner to them, is this defendable?

Landowner_defence_2 pdf is their claim they are sister companies. They're not - VCS is a subsidiary of Excel as of April 2018

 

It's worth noting these two points:

1. Contract is between EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LTD and xxx
2. CONTRACT CLAUSE 3.5 states that "The Company [EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED] has the absolute right to demand and collect in its own name, the Parking Charges"

So my WS pertaining to these points is

 

Para 46 Contract Party

 

1. The Claimant claims that “Vehicle Control Services Ltd” and “Excel Parking Ltd” are sister companies. Whether or not this is true is immaterial, the landowner contract provided by the Claimant states it is between EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED and THRE (UK) PROPERTY FUND. In this contract, paragraph 3.5 states that “The Company [EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED] has the absolute right to demand and collect in its own name, the Parking Charges”. VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD is a separate legal entity and has no right to “demand and collect” parking charges as a result of this contract.

 

 

docs2.pdf

[dx100uk]

demand and collect but no right to issue court claim on behalf of the land owner and neither to vary the original planning permission free parking times without written variance giving permission from the council planning authority neither.

 

 

[Rotarion]

Isn't a court claim covered by the stipulation of 3.5 "which may extend to debt recovery and/or court action"?

And I've also spotted 3.10 which says they can assign these rights to any third party. My point is not correct

 

And I've got no evidence of the planning permission stipulation of 2 hours free parking, tried to get it but no luck!

I don't even have the claim number that was struck out that day in Jan.

[Rotarion]

Their para 58 is a little demeaning, and this paralegal's just moved some of the judge's words around to patronise me!

Here's my response, is this correct?

 

Para 58 Right to claim damages

 

The Claimant cites [VCS v HMRC 2013] in order to confirm their right to grant license to park, and further, to then claim damages as a result of breach of contract. Although this case grants VCS the power to enter into a contract, it does not “of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking.

 

So it is necessary to consider whether it did.

”[para 23].

 

One of the facts of this case says

“VCS's clients ("clients") are owners or lawful occupiers of car parks or land.

VCS enters into a contract on standard terms and conditions with each of the clients under which VCS agrees to provide the client with "parking control services"”[para 2].

 

Since nothing has been provided to show that VCS has a contract with the landowner or lawful occupier of this car park, as the facts of this case were judged upon, then it cannot be relied on to prove a formation of contract, or that damages are lawfully due.

 

VCS v HMRC 2013

The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it.

 

There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace.

If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages.

 

On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price.

 

In order to perform the contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made.

 

Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right.

 

Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier.

 

The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the land.

 

Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract.

 

Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did.

 

VCS_Contract_Defense.pdf

[dx100uk]

you don't need to keep uploading the same docs..

and its not a contract defence its part of their witness statement..you are the defendant, they are the claimant....

 

might be best to upload their complete WS and exhibits too please

[Rotarion]

Ok - uploaded here. Thanks for your continued help!

I've been sent a message by Legggy, I hope with the case number of the dismissed case earlier this year!

But the messaging system doesn't seem to be working?

 

output.pdf

Edited May 12, 2020 by Rotarion

[honeybee13]

Hi.

 

What problem are you having with the messaging system please?

 

HB

[Rotarion]

Hi,

When I click on the inbox I get:

"Something is wrong"

and error

Error code: EX1054

[honeybee13]

Thank you. I'll report that.

 

HB

[Rotarion]

 No Problem,

their WS actually is really badly formatted, Their paragraphs are not continuous, and there's two paragraph 50s! (p13 and p17)

 

I think it's a junior paralegal trying their best to mix the cookie cutter WS with specific defences against mine.

[honeybee13]

Could you try your messages now please?

 

HB

[Rotarion]

Afraid not

[honeybee13]

Have you received a PM from me, Rotarion?

[lookinforinfo]

I cannot find t5he case you were asking about either.

 

However, if VCS has planning permission to erect signage and ANPR cameras [pretty doubtful] under Town an Country [Advertisements ]regulations 2007, Councils normally require 3 hours waiting time not 2.

 

However, to change the hours from 2 free hours to only one would require further permission from the Council.

If they don't have either permission from the Council, they are acting illegally, not unlawfully-there is a big difference. 

And they state in their WS that they comply with all legal requirements-without which they cannot get information from the DVLA.

 

 

 

As the payment wasn't made, you were trespassing and that is not covered in the agreement with the landowner's agent.

 

I hope that you have time to add these to your defence.

 

On another note, I think you should have a serious word with your MP for breaching data protection by sending your letter to VCS.

 

[Rotarion]

Hi - thanks for the info

- I still don't quite get whether the costs are for breach of contract, or damages for tresspass.

It's not clear at all.

 

I've already submitted WS and evidence in a bundle,

 

can I add supplementary statements?

I've been told I can email the courts and claimant.

 

I don't know if the MP sent my letter to them,

he just sent them a letter mentioning that I had a PCN from them and had complained.

 

Can you point out where in the Town  And Country Regs 2007 3 hours min stay is stipulated please?

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7678/321506.pdf

I can't find it here

[dx100uk]

they can't charge anyone for trespass

 

you want the granted planning permission for the site itself

 

there wont be anything in the 'act ' you quote.