VCS PCN Claimform - Broomfield Developements Broomspring Close. S37XA ***Claim Dismissed***

[ericsbrother]

The sign about clamping is NOT to be ignored, it is importnat evidence that the signage is rubbish and the contract is unenforceable because they cant clamp but are saying they will. Doesnt matter it is out of date, it is still there.

 

We want to see every different sign, including anything that just clutters the place up. if there are signs hidden by bins then we need to see that as well, anything that shows confusion, poor siting etc helps you

 

so all pictures should be taken from the worst possible angle as approached from what would be the normal direction, is from the public highway.

 

When being made an offer you arent expected to go hunting in hedgerows for the contract so if that is what you have to do to see their signs you need to show that and note the content of the sign.

[scotswestie]

Thanks ericsbrother, Ive taken Picts,  the sign are chest level on people’s back fences,

if a car was parked in front you would not see it,

also no lighting when dark,

text writing on sign so small.

 

 I tried to get Picts on google from 2015, but having difficulty.

 

 

 

[ericsbrother]

My thoughts are some of the roads there are public highways and the parking is not contiguous so they have to show some authority for every bay they have an interest in.

 

If you parked where there are no signs then they have no authority over those spaces and even of they did the lack of signage means there was no contract for you to consider. The other signs refer to those spaces and not yours.

 

Find the earlier thread about this place and see what in that makes sense to you. VCS dont have planning permission, they cant be bothered to write a proper NTK so no keeper liability and you may find the council will be helpful because they will have had bother about this before as well.

[scotswestie]

Hi ericsbrother, been a bit busy.  I did a search and Broomspring Close is a public road, which has been adopted by Sheffield City Council.  There was no sign in the bay the Trike had been deposited.  I think you are right is the comments you have made.  Thanks.

[ericsbrother]

you have plenty of time to deal with this but dont let it slip down your agenda too far.

 

Adoption of the road means that every space should have its own sign as there is no contiguous ownership.

 

VCS will be forced to drop this later on but they wont do so until the last knockings in case your bottom muscles twitch and feel like paying them just to avoid the stress of thrashing them in court.

 

get everything you can that might help you and that includes anything from local papers inc  pictures of when it was a building site and so forth.

 

Look at the planning permissions to see who the devloper was and who now owns the common parts. There is a good chance that VCS signed up with a management co that has no say anyway or the spaces are allocated via the sael of the property so again VCS will not have a licence to act on behalf of every individual just because they paid some bloke a few quid to sponsor his company golf day.

[scotswestie]

I will not forget other issues.  I will keep digging.  I am sure I sent a SAR request to these people in 2019, I am delving through paperwork looking for response. 
 

 

[scotswestie]

Hi I propose to put this in the online defence when appropriate.

 

[brassnecked]

You have the gist, the others will no doubt offer some constructive amendments  where and if needed.

[ericsbrother]

I would reverse points 1 and 3 and also 4 and 5 to make it flow better and then tidy up the wording to suit the new layout..

 

you have got the main thrust of your defence so well done for that.

Edited June 19, 2020 by ericsbrother

[scotswestie]

Hi I am going to submit this defence online.

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by scotswestie

[dx100uk]

On 19/06/2020 at 11:39, ericsbrother said:

I would reverse points 1 and 3 and also 4 and 5 to make it flow better and then tidy up the wording to suit the new layout..

 

you have got the main thrust of your defence so well done for that.

read erics post

put it up as text here so it can be quoted and edited not as a jpg.

 

dx

[scotswestie]

Ok will do thanks.

[scotswestie]

DEFENCE.

 

I believe the claimants claim has no merit.  I also believe it has no chance of success for the following reasons.

 

1.  There has been no contract offered by the claimants, to the defendant.

 

2.  All the signs in location are forbidding.

 

3.  The signage at the location the Trike was parked on site, was inadequate to be considered an offer.

 

4.  The claimant has no contract with the landowner.

 

5.  Further to this, the defendants do not believe that the claimant has locus standi.

 

i ask that the claim be struck out.

[ericsbrother]

Reverse 4 and 5 and keep in the bit about you being the occupier of the land.

when you ask for the claim to be struck out it is best to say why (no locus standi and abuse of process)  and quote the civil procedure rules so say under CPR 3.4

[scotswestie]

Ok, I will amend as you advise.  Thanks.

[scotswestie]

Good afternoon,

 

Just got Form N180 today.  I have completed and sent copies back to Court and VCS registered post to both of them.

[ericsbrother]

no need for registered pot, proof of posting from post office will suffice.

a while back I asked to see the signs saying clamping in operation etc but you havent posted them up. Show us everything because soon you will be collating all of your defence and seeing what you have will tell us what you need to get. Never leave it to the last moment

[scotswestie]

Ok thanks for that, I will get picture tomorrow of clamping sign, thought I had sent it.

 

Ta.

[scotswestie]

Hi ericsbrother, here it is clamping sign.

5. Illegal clamping sign..pdf

[ericsbrother]

That sign is excellent, it doesnt say it is owned by anyone other than whoever manages the parking so VCS cant deny it is part of the terms if they want to enforce the o0ther terms. that then means all of their terms are unenforceable as it is an illegal term so contract automatically unfair and void.

 

Thye should have covered it up or got landowner to remove it. I suspect that they didnt because it suits them not to

[brassnecked]

99% game over for VCS if Simple sends his usual rent a brief to court that sign kills their pig for sure once they delve into Contracts and breach of their terms.

[scotswestie]

Good morning,  Ive just had begging letter from VCS.  I know its rubbish but can they inform the Judge, that I refused a revised bribe, to keep my own money to claim costs if I don't accept there offer?

Plead for money letter VCS copy.pdf

[honeybee13]

I'd say you don't need to do anything but see what other people think.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

You rightly refer to it a s a begging letter and a plead for money - that's exactly what is is.  Ignore.

 

If I had someone by the short & curlies for £185 I wouldn't be accepting £125.  They know their claim is pants.

 

I knew Simple Simon was thick as pigdirt but this brings a new low to his stupidity.  The whole point of marking something "without prejudice" is that it can't be used in court!  So good luck to them trying to show the letter to a judge!!!

 

 

[brassnecked]

Yes begging letter, he would as FTMDave indicates have difficulty with that letter, as parking cases are generally not suitable for Arbitration. There are multiple factors that kill his pig for him, that he will only see when his cut & paste WS is done, and rebutted.