VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC - now claimform - no stopping - East Midlands Airport

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Alaska101

you are writing to a guy who runs a crooked business who is trying to scare you into paying an amount of money that he knows you do not owe. Why would you respond anywhere near politely to him.

 

Also you are sending him the message that you are not intimidated by him and are not going to pay his unlawful demand.

If he had a brain he would realise that when he gets these kind of letters in response to his letter of claim that he would do better to move on to someone else that he can frighten into paying. That he usually continues with the folly tends to compound the knowledge that he is indeed a simpleton.

 

The other thing to remember is that your letter may be shown in Court.

Judges around the Country will have read his nickname and as he loses just about all, if not all, well defended cases , Judges will have come to the same conclusion as ourselves.

 

You also have to ask the question what kind of idiot, knowing that he has little chance of winning a defended case in Court, still perseveres in taking that keeper to Court where he has been called simple thus confirming in some many minds that the epithet must be correct.

[lookinforinfo]

Hi Alaska101,

I know it can be difficult to be rude to people but here you are dealing with a bunch of crooks who care only how much money they can make from innocent motorists.

 

there is no need to be polite to them

-indeed to do so to them shows that they have a chance of getting you to pay  if they put enough pressure on you.

All this despite the fact that they know they have no legal right to ask for money from you.

 

On another subject,

I see that the NTK was sent to you on the 2nd March  yet you didn't receive it until the 10th March.

Was this because you car is leased or another reason.

 

Also, unless VCS already know your name  [possibly because the car was hired/leased/ do not tell them who was driving.

They have not complied with POFA so can only pursue the driver.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Which part of your snotty letter did they not understand. Perhaps they have been getting so many snotty letters that yours was politer than most and so they thought it was the nearest to a compliment they had had recently.

[lookinforinfo]

I see that you do go round looking at other threads [well done] so I suspect you are probably aware of the Airports Act 1986-an Act that covers most airports in the UK. 

 

Under section 63 [2] which relates to Byelaws it states

"(d)for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;"

 

In other words Byelaws are  used on roads other than those covered by the Road Traffic Act. It will become useful for you when you do your Witness Statement.

[lookinforinfo]

Once they do send their contract and witness statement please post it up so that we can point out their weaknesses which strengthen your case.

[lookinforinfo]

I've had a look at the WS-usual drivel of lies, misdirection etc. using their numbers listed on their WS I will point out what I can see is wrong with their case.

 

The Contract  

 

7] There can be no contract.

Under the Airports Act 1986  63 2[d] (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;

 

the roads at all airports are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws. Thus it is not relevant land and VCS do not have any power to issue PCNs on it regardless of having a contract with the East Midlands airport. In any event  EMA are NOT the landowners as confirmed by airport technology

 

"Located in the town of Castle Donington in north-west Leicestershire, East Midlands Airport is about eight miles from the city of Derby and within 20 miles of Nottingham and Leicester.

 

It is owned by Manchester Airports Group, which is itself owned by the ten metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester."

 

East Midlands Airport - Airport Technology

WWW.AIRPORT-TECHNOLOGY.COM

 

 

7] It follows on therefore that VCS should know that EMA are not the owners and nor is the Manchester Airports Group and even if MAG were the owners, there is no link from them to EMA. Therefore their statement that they have a contract is false.

 

So why Arsheed has signed that his account is truthful is beyond me.

 

In any event a contract to be valid has to be signed by both parties. VCS has not signed.  And Paul Goodwin who allegedly signed for EMA was, according to Linked in had ceased to be head of Procurement and Contracts had left that job in 2017. 

 

Furthermore the signage was there illegally.

There has been no permission granted by the local council under the Town and Country [Advertisements ] Regulations 2007.

 

This puts VCS in breach of their Code of Conduct which they signed to confirm that they complied with all legislation. It also puts them in breach of their agreement with the DVLA which should mean that they are barred from receiving data from the DVLA as confirmed by Lord Sumtion in the Parking Eye V Beavis Supreme Court which all parking companies quote that case ad nauseam regardless of its relevance.

 

There is no question that with all these facts outlined above that VCS had no right to pursue the Defendant and has held itself up to breaching the Defendants GDPR [where even a modest breach commands around £750 being granted to the Defendant-and this is no modest breach in my opinion.]

 

It is extremely unlikely that the paralegal will dare set foot in Court since his statement is tantamount to perjury and it is about time  the abuses by parking companies @legal@ departments was investigated.

 

8] Not only is there no contract here but even if there were, "No Stopping" is prohibitive and cannot be a contract.

 

9] there was no contract to enter into. The land is not relevant land. VCS are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Court.

 

10 & 11] no matter how often the Claimant talks of Terms and Conditions and the breaking of them, there was no contract involved.

 

Breach of Contract

12] Jopson v Homeguard was a Judges' definition of what constitutes parking. VCS has a contract with the DVLA for parking matters. Stopping is not parking so VCS should not be allowed to obtain DVLA data for no parking claims. In any case the contract with EMA does not mention that VCS can take motorists to Court.

 

I will look at their other points made tomorrow.

[lookinforinfo]

I was trying to find your Notice to keeper AKA as your first PCN from VCS if it wasn't on your windscreen.

 

No mention either of whether they are pursuing you as the driver or keeper in their WS.

 

If you haven't already posted up these details, could you please do so to help with your case.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The thing is that they posted countless photographs which could be anywhere other than at the EMA. There is no way of knowing and no names on any of the roads that could possibly identify them.

 

There are a couple of 30 mph signs that can only mean those are governed by the Road Traffic Act so not relevant land. Nor have they identified the road on which they allege you stopped-probably because they know it is not relevant land which would make their case against you tantamount to fraud.

[lookinforinfo]

I have had another look at your WS and I see that you didn't include perhaps a key point.

 

That the airport is not owned by EMA but by Manchester air group so as they are the land owner they are the ones who should be signing any contract with VCS. And even if they have allowed EMA to sign on their behalf there must be some kind of confirmation from MAG.

 

No contract means VCS lose since PoFA is based on their being a contact between the motorist and VCS. Of course this another example of VCS not complying with their COP and yet another dubious claim that the WS is a true statement. You must hammer home the veracity of the WS and their breaches of their COP.

 

The more things you can challenge that puts them in a bad light with the Judge the more likely is that they won't go ahead with the case.

https://www.airport-technology.com/projects/east_midlands_airpor/gs

 

I have looked at their NTK and it is a pity that you outed yourself as the driver when you appealed as the NTK is not PoFA compliant. If there is a next time do not appeal or write the appeal in a manner that you do not expose yourself as the driver.

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by dx100uk
block of text spaced to paragraphs