VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC, now default judgement - Hire Car - me named - no stopping - Southend Airport

[ericsbrother]

Heathrow has its own laws on setting down and picking up that recognise a very limited number of taxi plates as having the right to be there. Dont think that applies to other airports though

[northmonk]

No I'm pretty sure that even private cars can set down for free at Heathrow terminals, I've seen plenty of families etc dropping off their relatives - Gatwick you certainly can. As I mentioned above, Stansted is the only terminal where you have to pay £3.50 to drop off right outside the terminal, which is controlled by barriers, so no entrapment like Simple Simon runs at various airports

Edited May 23, 2020 by northmonk

[northmonk]

Hi folks, so this is the letter I'm going to send - do you think better to wait until the outcome of the 01/06 hearing in Lewes to send, or just post it tmrw with proof of posting?

 Dear Simple Simon,

After reading your LBA I can see why you are called "simple". Do you really think that I would pay money to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65. I further refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram case.

You knew you had no legitimate reason to ask for my details so you are already in breach of GDPR. if you want to take me to Court bring a cheque book for me and a tooth brush for the Judge, I WILL defeat you and recover my full costs through a recovery order rest assured.

Alternatively desist and bother me no more with this nonsense!

 

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by northmonk

[northmonk]

Can anyone see my post, seems to have gone very quiet?

[AndyOrch]

We can.....we do have quiet days

 

Andy

[northmonk]

Ok fair enough, I was just inviting feedback on my potential letter to simple Simon of VCS before I post but didn't get any replies. I'll give it another day or so

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Northmonk, sorry I didn't respond yesterday to your question.

 

I would be inclined to stop your reply after the word Judge.

You cannot be 100% certain you will win in Court and that wording may encourage them to take you to Court paradoxically enough.

 

Also asking them to desist has as  much chance as King canute rtying to contol the sea.

 

The first part shows them that you aren't afraid of them or going to Court plus you know about the OPS case.

That should be enough for them to move on to someone else though they may continue with DRP etc.

 

A lot too may depend on the aftermath from the June 1st Court meetings with Judge Harvey assuming they all turn up as it was by invitation and not a direct order.

[brassnecked]

Yes looks OK up until judge, best not wind them too much, maybe ericsbrother might be along soon, he might suggest any fine tuning or another angle of attack to add.

[northmonk]

Ok thanks for that.

 

Incidentally if they do choose to go to court,

the cost of hiring a brief for the day would be more than they're attempting to get out of me surely,

thereby undermining the whole point of not paying them in the first place?!

 

Unless of course costs etc are awarded in my favour,

I'm not sure I could defend myself,

this is a new situation for me as legalese ain't exactly my forte!

[brassnecked]

Its a numbers game for them, if they see you know they haven't a leg to stand on they could go after a more compliant mug who will swallow all the guff and garbage they spout.

[dx100uk]

best you read a few no stopping threads here 

use our search top right

you'll soon get the idea

 

the more you read

the stronger we become.

 

you don't need any legalese and costs are fixed in small claim court...

[northmonk]

So I wouldn't have to stand before the judge and articulate the finer points of contract law etc? What's the procedure generally when these things do go to court? Thanks

[dx100uk]

get reading up

cag is self help too..

 

dxc

 

[Tony P]

On 23/05/2020 at 07:57, northmonk said:

No I'm pretty sure that even private cars can set down for free at Heathrow terminals, I've seen plenty of families etc dropping off their relatives - Gatwick you certainly can. As I mentioned above, Stansted is the only terminal where you have to pay £3.50 to drop off right outside the terminal, which is controlled by barriers, so no entrapment like Simple Simon runs at various airports

Heathrow. Free drop off outside terminals. No waiting/pick up allowed except in car parks (paying, of course!).

Luton. Also charges for BOTH drop off and pick up ( £4 for 10 minutes then £1/minute) close to terminal. Free for 15 minutes in the mid term car park about 8 minutes walk from the terminal building.  Free for an hour and free shuttle bus further away in a long stay car park. Possibly disrupted by Covid and building works.

[northmonk]

Ok I'll bear that in mind next time I go to Luton airport which is very rarely. I don't mind paying for short term car park for pickups but for dropping off is greedy and ridiculous when you're there literally 1 minute max!

[northmonk]

Ok folks I've added a couple more sentences, please check for legal validity my wording here before I print and post. Also do I add my name or anything at the bottom, I know I don't sign but do I need to confirm my name at least or just leave that out at well? And the address is the VCS one up in Sheffield correct? Thanks in advance...

 

 Dear Simple Simon,

After reading your LBA I can see why you are referred to as "simple"! Do you really think that I would pay money to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65. I further refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram case. Your prohibitive signs are just that and no offer of a contract is made. Even if they were legitimate, completely ignore the 5-10 minute grace period usually afforded in such cases anyway.

Also you knew you had no legitimate reason to ask for my details so you are already in breach of GDPR. if you want to take me to Court bring a cheque book for me and a tooth brush for the Judge

 

[brassnecked]

Really need to drop the toothbrush bit

[northmonk]

They was on a recommendation in here, too cocky/provocative you think?

[Gick]

The Arkell v Pressdram reference is weakened by being inside the text. It should be the last sentence of the letter, as was the relevant content in that case!

Edited May 28, 2020 by Gick

[ericsbrother]

You have a choice, argue the points and get nowhere or send the insulting letter and possibly get to hear nothing more about it.

SRS  outfit is greedy adn stupid, they dont want to learn from past experiance becasue they need to change the law to get a lawful win but wont appeal any fo the rejected claims to a higher court because they still gte most of the money but just dont want the whole world to know they are dishonest.

 

have you looked up Arkell v Pressdram?

[northmonk]

Thanks guys, I'm posting the insulting letter today with proof of postage.

 

And whilst I'm awaiting Simple's decision, I'll study "no stopping" cases and VCS airport cases and Arkell v Pressdram to get really up to speed on the consistent weaknesses in Simple's cases, learn the points on which he always loses, no offer of contract etc

[ericsbrother]

I will tell you the story of Arkell V Pressdram as it is well known in the legal world.

 

A crooked ex-police officer didnt like being exposed in Private Eye so he got his solicitors to start a libel action against the owners of the magazine, Pressdram.

 

The suit said that he wanted this and that and would accept an apology and money otherwise he would proceed with a bigger claim. The Pressdram response was " Oh flip off".

 

He duly skulked off because he was a crook and wasted his money on lawyers for the opening shots and PE published the whole exchange thus making him look even more stupid.

 

So a foxtrot oscar response is often referred to as the Arkell v Pressdram defence

[northmonk]

On 28/05/2020 at 11:17, Gick said:

The Arkell v Pressdram reference is weakened by being inside the text. It should be the last sentence of the letter, as was the relevant content in that case!

 

Yes I've just read Private Eye magazines response to this classic case of harassment, and you're right! Telling simple Simon to go forth and multiply is precisely the ending my letter needs, I've changed it accordingly - many thanks!

 

Thanks EB, I'll remember the Pressdram reference, as driving for a living there's a good chance I'll need to use it again!

[northmonk]

Just posted my Pressdram response to the greedy moron up in Sheffield:

 

 

29/05/'20

 

Dear Simple-Simon,

 

VCS speculative invoice no: VCS********

 

After reading your LBA I can see why you are referred to as "simple"! Do you really think that I would pay money to a company that has no locus standi here and has fallen into the same trap as OPS v W at Lewes CC 24th April 2020, particularly paras 52-65.

 

Your prohibitive signs are just that and no offer of a contract. Even if they were a legitimate offer of a contract, they completely ignore the 5-10 minute grace period usually afforded in such cases anyway.

 

You knew you had no legitimate reason to ask for my details so you are already in breach of GDPR. If you want to take me to Court, bring a cheque book as I will be seeking a full costs recovery through a recovery order.

 

Finally I'll refer you to the Arkell v Pressdram case and the letter from Private Eye magazine, act on that!

 

See what happens, going to make a donation to CAG in the meantime - I might need further counsel yet depending on how skint Simple-Simon is feeling with all these empty airports and carparks!

 

[ericsbrother]

shouldnt have mentioned private eye as it shows you have only just  discovered this bon mot and they will now guess at the extent of your ignorance rather than considering the extent of your knowledge.

 

knowing what to leave out is as importnat as knowin what to put in