Jump to content


VCS spycar? PCN Claimform- No Stopping - Bristol Airport


Recommended Posts

The case has been ordered without a hearing and allocated to the small claims track. I have read all the relevant parts of the CPR  associated with this order. If agree to a paper determination, which I assume means I cannot defend myself, then is it still possible to be ordered to pay the claimant a fee?

Paper determination.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is where you want it to be.

  • 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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not agree to the case being heard on the papers.

 

If you do, Simon will simply send in a load of lies and you won't be able to counter them.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Paper's is always a No No. but small claims track is where it needs to be, and NO to mediation.

  • Like 2

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

have a small claims court date in October to be conducted online via Microsoft Teams.

 

I have received a copy of the claimants witness statement.

 

My defence that we didn’t enter into an agreement seems really weak as there are so many signs that state no stopping which is validated by the IPC. They have a whole page in their defence that seems pretty strong that the owner (ME) did enter into a contract.

 

I also didn’t transfer liability to the actual driver. Does this matter? I have yet to say anything about the fact I was not the driver or the reason the driver had to stop to answer a phone call from her ailing father.

 

Should I do all that in the hearing?

The claimants defence is ca comprehensive 8 pages long!!

 

Does it now come down to how I perform in the actual hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

scan up the complete claimants WS to ONE mass multipage PDF.

read our upload guide carefully.

 

you too have to submit a witness statement by xx date , when is that? and when does simon have to pay the hearing fee.

 

there are 100's of VCS no stopping threads here with example defendant WS's in, since june you should have been reading up as CAG is self help too.

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. We have to submit by 4th September. I have looked at some examples defendant WSs and will refer back to them when writing my own. I will upload the claimants WS later on today. The claimant has till the 9th of September to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm..unusual that the fee paying date is after your date to file your WS.

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been reading threads by motorists in a similar position to familiarise yourself with the legal process and legal arguments?  I suspect not.  The regulars here don't have time to explain every little detail and even if we did we wouldn't - you are the one going to court and you need to educate yourself about the arguments.

 

A good place to start is Alaska101's thread, especially as they were not very confident about preparing for court at the start but have gone on to put together a cracking Witness Statement.

 

I haven't kept exact figures, but I reckon Caggers beat Simon in court 90% or 95% of the time.  in every case there is the eight-page Witness Statement (not "defence") which is actually a hindrance as judges don't like pages & pages of tripe.  In every airport case the question of no stopping, signage and prohibition comes up.

 

Please upload Simon's Witness Statement - and get reading up.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for all the help on this. I have been reading a variety of threads as you suggested. I see why people just give in and pay! I am attaching the VCS  WS and my own first draft WS which I know needs extra work (the page no. / exhibit no. I will fill in at the end. I have until the 4th to submit it.

CWS1 bw.pdf WS draft 1 .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please post up the other papers you recieved with their WS. The contract, your PCN which sounds as if it failed to comply with PoFA, and the signage they are using as well as a map of the area where they said you breached their T&Cs.  Quite often their case gets thrown out because of the details  they provided.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done on your WS so far.  Sure, as you say, more work needs to be done.  The weekend is coming up which gives us time to do so.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes looking good, just some tweaks and do as Lookedinforinfo asks, there may well be something in there that is fatal to their claim you can put in your WS/

  • 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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done the easy bit and read Ambreen's stuff, which comes down to "we put a load of signs up guv, loads, a bucketful, myriads, a plethora, and my bezzies in the IPC agree there were masses of them too".  Er - that's it.  Her usual cut & paste job.

 

I see for once she tries to justify the Unicorn Food Tax and also mentions POFA - thus LFI's request to see if the original PCN complies.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

pdf's merged and compressed to your last post

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WWW.BRISTOLAIRPORT.CO.UK

Bristol Airport is owned by Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (Teachers’).

Interesting that Bristol airport is  owned by a company in Ontario. It should be them who make the arrangement with VCS not Bristol Airport as stated on the contract. The only way round it is that there is some sort of confirmation from Ontarion that Bristol Airport is able to sign on their behalf. Otherwise there is no contract between the land owner and the motorist.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, apologies in advance.  The nature of the beast is that no-one is going to write paragraphs & paragraphs applauding the good bits of your WS, they're going to underline the bits that need to be changed.

 

I suggest you use Alaska 101's excellent WS in post 110 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments

 as your starting point.  Simply initially copy the whole thing verbatim.  Then chop/add/change bits according to your own circumstances.  Alaska 101's case is a no stopping airport case like your own.

 

When I say to copy verbatim, at least at the start, it is however essential that you understand the legal arguments - and if you don't, please ask here.  In court no-one will expect you to speak like a lawyer, however you will be up against a local solicitor who will have picked up the file for the first time 10 minutes before the case and will say you stopped when the signs said no stopping and you need to be able to counter that.

 

(4) needs to go.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Even VCS, fleecers through they are, mention in their PCN what to do if you weren't the driver.

 

(5) is more appropriate for a defence.  You need to take the good work LFI has put in in post 74 and explain why VCS have no locus standi to take you to court.

 

(7) is more appropriate for a defence.

 

(8) needs to be reworded.  Don't say you didn't notice the signs because your mind was elsewhere, you could come across as driving without due care & attention!

 

(10), (11), (14), (16) are just waffle and should go.

 

Time is moving on now, if you have time this weekend please post up a revised version based on Alaska 101's work and we'll retweak where necessary.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for posting up the other items included with their WS. If we start with theri WS we can look at what a mess it is. If we use the numbers that they have on their WS and take it from there.

 

Point 4] here they are trying to point out that they are an outstanding upright company when nothing could be further from the truth. Time and again they take people to Court when it was their sister company who actually  ran the car park. So time and time again they lose but it still doesn't seem to stop them trying again. 

 

8] No Stopping cannot form a contract as it is a  prohibitive sign. Yet time and again they take people to court and time and time again they lose because their sign is not capable of forming a contract with motorists. Nevertheless from point 8 to point 16 they continue the charade that no stopping is a contract hoping to a] scare the motorist into paying and b] hoping to misdirect the Court.

 

17] their NTK is not PoFA compliant [ their wording does not comply with s9 [2] [f] which it MUST if they want to transfer driver liability to the keeper ]  and which they acknowledged at the start of this point but then try and mislead the court again the court by saying they they are assuming the keeper is the driver [the keeper was NOT driving] and then carrying on to state that if the keeper is not the driver then they are relying on PoFA! They cannot rely on it which they have already admitted.

 

18] is just gobbledegook. VCS has lost the ability to pursue the keeper because their NTK is not compliant.

 

22 and 23] no matter how often they say it, No Stopping does not offer a contract and in any event that are supposed to run car parks not roads that are either covered by the Road Traffic or Bye Laws which are present at the airport.

 

24] Just because Parking Eye had a proper contract in a car park with the motorist does not mean that VCS have a contract on a road. Totally absurd.

 

25] we are now in the reals of make believe. The whole point of a contract is that it does include an offer an acceptance and a consideration. There was no mutual promise because there was no offer and no consideration. The sign is prohibitive so there can be no offer.

 

{there are many items on the Forum about debunking their £60 fee and of course it falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015  where they have to state the amount being charged on their signage  so it is unfair that they don't. In any event PoFA doesn't allow it especially when neither the driver is known nor the keeper is liable.

 

I think it fair to say that after a WS like that Ambreen will not be appearing in court as there are too many difficult questions that would be asked.

 

28 ,29  30.] The IPC COP is there own concoction which has no bearing in a court of Law.

 

Moving on to the contract.

 

The first thing to say is that Bristol airport Ltd is not the land owner as I posted on your thread a couple of days ago. They are just tenants. On top of that their contract is invalid. It should either be signed by two directors from each company or be signed by on director each and be witnessed by two other independent people.

 

See Law of Property Act [miscellaneous provisions ]  1989 section 1 [3]

 

 

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a Litigant in Person so will be allowed some flexibility by the court.  Don't worry if you don't meet the deadline of 4pm tomorrow, the court will be closed at that time anyway and after it's the weekend.  If you end up e-mailing the court their copy on Sunday and posting Simon his on Monday you should be OK.

 

I think you've used an earlier draft of Alaksa101's WS rather than the final version I indicated, still, no problem.

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've attached Alaska101's final version here.  Look at the way they have split the WS up into sections with headings.  I think that is an excellent approach as the judge can immediately see the legal arguments being made.

 

You can use huge chunks of the section "Locus Standi", mostly you'd just need to change the name of the airport.

 

However, in this section I would make Alaska101's points 10 & 11 into a section on their own and entitle it "Bye Laws" as this is one of your aces.

 

Also cut out Alaska101's point 8, join it with your point about not being the driver, and entitle a new section "No Keeper Liability".

 

You can use the section "Prohibition" word for word, it is exactly the same as your case.

 

Alaska101's section "Enforcement Area" has nothing to do with your case so ignore it completely.

 

The section "Double Recovery" can be used virtually word for word too.  I would just make a couple of changes to make it flow better.

 

"17.  The Claimant is entitled to claim £50 legal costs for this sum, and does so in their Particulars of Claim.  However, in a letter that the Claimant send to me on 3 June 2021 (exhibit XXXXX) the Claimant says they are not represented by solicitors and instead are representing themselves."

 

Did Simon send you a letter threatening to ask the court for £220 extra costs?  This is one of his bluffs and I had it in my mind that you'd got one of these letters, but apologies if I'm getting threads mixed up.

In the County Court - FI_Redacted-4.pdf

  • 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

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...