Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


50437

VCS/EXCEL/ELMS default CCJ 'no stopping' PCN - BP Garage East Midlands Airport DE74 2SA - Set Aside Telephone hearing help

Recommended Posts

Any cases on here at east midlands at bp garage that are court cases? Need support will make a thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any update on this. I have similar court case at BP petrol station. Same @irport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG. As you say it's best to start a new thread of your own, we look forward to reading it :)

 

Best, HB

  • Thanks 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I want to know if there have been any cases on this forum that are similar to mine.

 

Stopping at BP Petrol Station next to East Midlands Airport - Passenger was a customer of the store. Bank statement proof. 

 

VCS issued NTK (ignored) and ELMS Legal taking legal proceedings.

Now excel just got involved as they received set aside as well.

 

I am trying to set aside the default judgement

- I took too long to respond but managed to get something in Attached

- though illiterate in law and took ages.

 

See attachments for full details.

- I need to know what I am missing for it to be a winning case.

 

I have contacted;

1 - My Local MP (She also contacted my on whatsapp to say she will go over it, but not sure of response yet)

2 - Harvest Energy Land owner of where BP Petrol Station is

- they are waiting for VCS to reply (due to pandemic no response yet is what Harvest said)

 

3 - SRA to claim abuse of process and over charging

- awaiting response (they say 20 days on the auto reply)

 

 

 

myparkingcharge.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I've had to remove your attachment because you left all sorts of details about you unredacted, name, car reg, case number, etc. Please edit out anything that could identify you and repost it.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you sound like you are all over the place and firing useless bullets in every direction seeing who you can hit..

 

why did you not respond to the original letter of claim before the court claim?

and why did you not defend the court claim and get a default judgement?

 

dx


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying to get the passenger to find the evidence like the receipt, then tried the store itsself, then went over to bank statement where we found it. Then writing the defence took ages, but thanls to all contributers on the internet, adapted something. 

 

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
 
CLAIM No: XXXXXXX
 
BETWEEN:
 
Vehicle Control Services Limited (“the Claimant”)
 
2 Europa Court
 
Sheffield Business Park
 
Sheffield
 
S91XE
 
-and-
 
XXXXXX (“Defendant”)
 
DEFENCE
 
1. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
 
No keeper liability
 
2. The vehicle, registration XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered Keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by this Claimant to have entered a petrol filling station from a private road and stopped briefly. As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.
 
3. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of POFA states that land is not ‘relevant’ where byelaws apply to it. In this case, the land in question is covered by East Midlands Airport Byelaws 2001, issued September 2009. As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.
 
No contract existed
 
4. The Claimant claims that there was a breach of contract for “breaching the terms and conditions” set on private land.
 
5. The Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a ‘contract’ between a driver and the Claimant, and the breaching of terms presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage.
 
6. In other correspondence, The Claimant invites the Defendant to refer to the ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ case. In the ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ case, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful ‘offer’ made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a ‘consideration’ in respect of this. There is no such ‘offer’ made by the signage in this case, no ‘contractual licence’, no ‘benefit of free parking‘, and no conceivable way anyone could have benefitted from this alleged ‘contract’ without breaching its terms. The ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the ‘contractual licence to park’ being given to the Defendant, e.g. ‘They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there’.
 
7. The parking contract in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case was judged to be ‘objectively reasonable’ partly because ‘motorists generally’ did accept it. The landowner wanted as many people as possible to use the car park in question so the contractual arrangements were designed to be attractive to the average motorist. This is the complete antithesis of the supposed ‘contract’ in this case which is designed to actively discourage motorists from parking at the site. The terms of this ‘contract’ are not ‘objectively reasonable’, but deliberately designed to be so heinous that no one in their right mind would agree to them. It follows that this is not a ‘contract’ but a prohibitory notice masquerading as such.
 
8. In the Parking Eye vs Beavis case the Supreme Court Judges reiterated the requirement for fair and open dealing, at Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”
 
9. The Court is requested to consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent’. At the roadway where the PCN was issued, it was not transparent that anyone was agreeing to some sort of contract to pay £100 to park under some sort of licence. In this case, the unfair terms include the penalty fine itself and also the added £60 'debt collection costs' bolted onto this claim which themselves are unfair and breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
 
Inadequate, Contradictory, Unclear and Confusing Signage
 
10. It is the Defendant’s position that the accepting conduct and declining conduct are contradictory as one cannot be performed without first performing the other.
 
11. In Ransomes vs. Anderson (“the Ransomes case”), a persuasive County Court judgement on appeal, Judge Moloney QC said:-
 
12. “the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.
 
13. It is the Defendant’s further position that due to the size of font used on the signage, the accepting conduct laid out in the signs was not readily legible without having first performed the accepting conduct and therefore fails when viewed in the context of the Judge’s comments in the Ransomes case in that there is doubt before performing the accepting conduct.
 
Unfair Terms Contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015
 
14. If, by pursuing this claim, the Claimant is denying that the Defendant has declined the alleged contract in accordance with the declining conduct, then the Defendant avers that the Claimant is forcing the contract irrevocably on the Defendant who has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:-
 
“A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”
 
No Grace Period
 
15. According to the current Contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”. 
 
16. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator and a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and according to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued to the Defendant, operates in accordance with their Code of Practice.
 
17. The IPC Code of Practice (Sixth Edition that was in force at the time of the event) Clause 15.1 states that a ‘grace’ period must be allowed:
 
“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.
 
18. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-10 minutes from the period of stopping. According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than one minute. Thus, a grace period was not observed and therefore the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, and therefore in default of the contract that exists between them and the DVLA; hence the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences.
 
19. Additionally, no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
 
20. Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention.
 
Double Recovery
 
21. The Claimant is seeking an additional £60 ‘debt recovery cost’ over and above the original Notice to Keeper amount of charge of £100.
 
The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs), and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 in respect of 'terms that may be unfair'.
 
24. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.
 
25. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.
 
26. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.
 
31. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the  will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim, and this constitutes double recovery

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you've not used that yet have you?

where are you at ..

you speak of default judgement

you speak of a set aside.

 

what stage are you at?

 

you most certain don't include the penalty fine itself

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have filed the n244 with help with fees. 

 

Court sent me a telephone hearing date of 1st week of june. 

 

I would appreciate help at this stage. 

 

The defence has been sent using template above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you are describing is impossible, you don't file a defence with an N244.  Can you please answer dx's post 8?

 

1.  Did you get a Letter Before Claim?

2.  Did you receive a claimform from the court?

3.  Did you fail to defend that claim?

4.  Did VCS then obtain a default judgement?

5.  Are you trying to get that judgement set aside?


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

complete this please 

need the Org POC..

 

it looks like it is only a set aside hearing, you having got a default judgement against you or you lost the org claim.

 

you only needed to file a basic few lines defence, not a chapter any verse that's for a full hearing if the claimant requests one when you win.

 

we need to see what the defendant has sent you!!

 

I would only argue/concentrate on your defence your points 1,2,3. 

forget the rest.

you don't need to go there until WS time 

 

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

What you are describing is impossible, you don't file a defence with an N244.  Can you please answer dx's post 8?

 

1.  Did you get a Letter Before Claim?

The NTK? 

11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

2.  Did you receive a claimform from the court?

Yes

11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

3.  Did you fail to defend that claim?

I was too late but i gave my reasons. 

11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

4.  Did VCS then obtain a default judgement?

Yes that is correct

11 hours ago, FTMDave said:

5.  Are you trying to get that judgement set aside?

Yes I am. I hope its successful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land.

The defendants vehicle was identified in the fuel station in 3rd quater of 2019 in breach of advertised terms and conditions.

Namely stopping in a zone where stopping prohibited.

 

At all material times the defendant was registered keeper and or driver.

 

The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations.

 

The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct.

 

The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely the parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability.

 

The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what has the defendant sent you from day one please

all paperwork..one multipage pdf.

 

before the issuance of the claimform by northants bulk court you should have received a letter of/before claim from VCS.

that would have been after the the NTK, but on the front that, I will guess the picture on the NTK are  'spycar/CCTV' images not an ANPR system.

 

the bottom line it is not relevant land, it is covered by Byelaws which VCS can't enforce themselves...no locus standi.

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several things

- You will get the set aside as the court has to allow anything that isnt a completely hopeless case but that requires you to put something down to show some chance of success if they allow the set aside and it goes to a hearing.

 

You have some winning points here,

firstly

the supposed breach for no stopping isnt a breach of contrcat as it isnt a parking event,

the signs saying no stopping or whatever are prohibitive in nature and therefore cannot be considered to be an offer of terms for actually stopping or parking.

 

This makes the demand an unlawful penalty charge and not as due under or for a brach of contract.

 

Secondly,

VCS never rely on keeper liabily in their NTK's so they can only sue the driver.

They dont know who this is at the time and cannot make assumptions. 

 

This means they have no cause for action against you as the keeper of the vehicle.

Also the land will be covered by its own byelaws so VCS wont have locus standi ( right to make a claim) as these byelaws trump any contract they supposedly offer.

 

They know this but have always tried to bluff the courts or tell downright lies.

Knowing what you put in your late defence would tell us wheteher this applies or whether you have identified yourself as the driver at the time.

 

You may have a case for suing them for breach of the GDPR for unlawfully obtaining and procerssing your personal data buts let jump the fences as we come to them.

 

you will need to focus on things,

your postings here are not particularly succint or precise so read up on parking matters,

particularly at airports and then tell us more about your case with a distinct tmeline so we know who said what and when.

 

Proof of someone else shopping is not that important as they are not party to the contract between the driver and VCS

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The car as shown in cctv was at the bp garage,

when NTK came emailled IPC and POPLA to say if they know about the case but they could not help at the time, with just the location and registration they needed an appeal case number.

I had no idea about all this Internet help back then. 

 

I then asked passenger identified in photo to send me receipt, he looked for it didnt find it, we asked the store owned by harvest energy, they confirmed purchase but couldn't help without VCS replying and all this pandemic is going on, we realised bank statement is sufficient to show and stuck that in defence.

 

Email communication with VCS and ELMS was just the CC with court to set aside judgement and also about SAR  (subject access request) so i know what data they have of me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so they have not sent a bundle yet in relation to their evidence again your set aside ?

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points EB underlined are the ones to emphasise with the judge, to show you have a good defence.

 

EB, I know you have experience of set asides and have followed changes in the law.  IIRC the OP needs to show the court (a) why they didn't file a defence at the time and (b) that they are able to defend the claim during a rematch.  (b) is easy, but how do they go about explaining away why they didn't defend the claim when they had the chance?

  • 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was putting together my defence,

i am not literate in law and so had to get advice from all these beneficial posts, trying to Adapt.

 

Also i have proof of whatsapp and text conversations between myself and the passenger to try and aquire this bank statement from passenger. 

 

The passenger is a nhs porter in a local hospital works 12 hour shifts. Has been more busy during pamdemic. 

 

3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

so they have not sent a bundle yet in relation to their evidence again your set aside ?

 

No they have not. Should i demand them to send it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are there not court directions you each must abide by on the notification of the hearing date ?


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dx100uk said:

are there not court directions you each must abide by on the notification of the hearing date ?

They just want my number and make sure i have any documents ready electronically 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok

don't forget to get all you docs up here if you want help 

 

what has the defendant sent you from day one too please

all paperwork..one multipage pdf.

 

before the issuance of the claimform by northants bulk court you should have received a letter of/before claim from VCS.

did you?

 

the bottom line it is not relevant land, it is covered by Byelaws which VCS can't enforce themselves...no locus standi


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation of what I was told by a judge in a set aside hearing is that no "reason" has to be supplied so it doesnt really matter why the defendant didnt defend.

 

In the case I had won by default and went to a set aside the company had received the summons and subsequent correspondence and they calimed that it had simply been shoved in a drawer and forgotten about. Despite me showing other evidence that showed this was inconsistent to their actions the set aside was granted and I was told that a set aside wil almost automatically be grnated as long as there is some sort of defence and the application is not just a delaying tactic.

 

So reason for set aside is that your defence was submitted but not considered at the time for technical/procedural reasons.

 

So my advice is to do your homework so you can show that the claim is duff,

VCS know this because they have lost a number fo defended claims on the same matters ( quote examples) and you may get a summary dismissal rather than a new hearing because the judge can use their powers to make that decision.

 

Chances are they wont take that step unless VCS fail to get involved as they should and a set aside will be granted and it all starts again as though nothing had happened and VCS will then ahve to decide whether they want to risk a full hearing knowing that you are wise to them and they arent going to win

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between NTK and Court claim form there was letter from ELMS legal. Saying they got default judgement. 

 

2 hours ago, ericsbrother said:

my advice is to do your homework so you can show that the claim is duff, VCS know this because they have lost a number fo defended claims on the same matters ( quote examples) and you may get a summary dismissal rather than a new hearing because the judge can use their powers to make that decision. 

 

I need to find these cases.

Hopefully soon enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 50437 said:

Between NTK and Court claim form there was letter from ELMS legal. Saying they got default judgement. 

 

Are you sure? My understanding is that a default judgement comes after it's been to court and the judge has found against you. Edit: maybe we could see the letter please.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


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...