Jump to content


VCS 2*Vanishing Windscreen PCN's - now Claimform - Brook Retail Car Park, Ruislip ***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 882 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I've had a closer look at the VCS deed.

 

There is no link with Zurich via GBR Phoenix which seems fairly typical of VCS. The Director of GBR Phoenix Beard has signed the deed but not printed their name as required. GBR Phoenix Beard went into liquidation on 3rd October 2019 so that contract with VCS is dead as your PCNs were issued in 2020.

 

It is a strange contract insofar as it doesn't insist that VCS complies with legislation relating to parking and to adhere to their Code of Conduct. It still means that their lack of planning permission for the signage means that they do not comply with their Code of Conduct  despite them saying that they do.

 

They have also misled the DVLA who assume that VCS are compliant with the Code of Practice so should not be given motorists data. 

 

VCS know they are in breach so had no reason to pursue your parents and have thus breached their GDPR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

N180's came through. Can I check this is correct?

 

No to mediation

Yes to small claims track being appropriate

Hearing venue: our local one

Expert evidence: No

Witness: 1 (presumably if I go with my parents, I'm not a witness but a lay rep)

The box where you list when you're not able to attend court is small - so I'm just going to continue writing dates next to the box. 

 

Then photocopy the paperwork and keep one copy, send one copy to court and one copy to VCS Litigation with the email & telephone number redacted via second class stamp but free proof of mail.

 

Got a letter from VCS Litigation that Elms have chucked them so presumably don't need to send it to Elms. VCS offering to settle for £185 - I guess that means they also know they're chancing it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're right, but wait for dx to pop in, dx is the N180 expert.

 

Why 1 witness?  As you say, you'd be a lay rep, not a witness.

 

Simon has included £50 legal costs in his claim - but now will be representing himself!  Another own goal from Simon.

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

Hi Dave! 1 witness because it says including yourself - so one witness would be each respective parent. Not me!

 

Okay sure I'll wait for dx to confirm.

 

I did think that - he has his own in-house litigation dept! What an extraordinary business model Simon runs to get other people to pay his employees salaries 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

the claimform names a defendant...

that is the 1 wit..

 

 

dont have to inform that a lay rep is presenting, same as the opposition doesn't have to say they will be using a solicitor. Read and take a copy of the stuff about lay reps, it will be linked via the parking pranksters blogspot or website

  • Like 1

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

  • 2 months later...

Hello everyone- well the fun is beginning!

 

1) Both cases are going to court and are on the same day at the same time (end of October) on the telephone. I had hoped to be able to be on the phone for both - any experience with successfully getting the date (or time) changed? I tried ringing the court a few times and didn't get through to anyone. Is my best idea to keep ringing or do they not really change times/dates normally?

 

2) We were sent a letter end of August from VCS offering us a £27.50 discount to settle (see letter attached). Have ignored.

 

3) Peculiarly one WS statement from VCS has already arrived. Our scanner broke so I have scanned using my phone (apologies for some weird angles) but I thought I would upload it now so you can already read it. I'll draft a WS in the coming days and then hopefully can get some feedback on that.

 

As a highlight, to whet your appetite, their main cognitive acrobatics are:

(para 18) the car was 'observed by manual patrol... parked in a restricted/prohibited area.'

(para 29) 'patrol officers comments...stating the driver of Defendants vehicle parked the vehicle and left the site.'

(para 32) 'Was observed by patrol officer parking...leaving the site. Rendering, D's vehicle parked in contravention...namely resulting in the vehicle parked in a restricted/prohibited area...'

 

 

VCS Settlement Letter.pdf

Edited by EL21
(Oh the WS didn't upload. Let me try to compress it and I'll try again)
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, we'll look forward to reading the WS and see how VCS reckon a free public car park can become a "restricted area".

 

The letter you got is a recent tactic of Simon's to try to scare you.  We've seen five or six now.  It's just lies.  Costs are capped at £50 at small claims and so there is no way they would ask the court for that money as they would just be humiliated.

 

Now ...

 

... a Cagger called Alaska 101 therefore turned the tables and included the letter in their WS!  They showed the court that Simon sends out letters lying about non-existent requests to the court for non-existent costs!  I think you should so the same.

 

Alaska101's WS is 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  Their case concerns no stopping, and at an airport, so is very different from yours.  However you can use all the stuff about costs in points17-27 virtually word for word.    

 

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

Hi FTM Dave - 

 

That's great - thank you for pointing my in the direction of Alaska 101.

 

The pdf technology has defeated me today. I'll try and get their WS up tomorrow or Wednesday.

 

Any idea on whether moving a court date / time is possible? Should I just keep trying to get through to the court?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really at expert on changing court dates but I did a web search and came up with this link from this very site written by none other than Andy!  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/268325-can-you-change-a-court-hearing-date/

 

It's unfortunate the two cases are at exactly the same time.  As you see, it will take some faffing around to change the time and you'll need to give a real reason.

 

IIRC one of your parents parked with a wheel slightly over the line of the bay, but it seems VCS aren't using this but are going down the road of this idiotic "Restricted Area" tripe which is good news.

 

Anyway, we'll wait on the WS to see what Simon is arguing and work out how to fight him. 

 

 

 

 

 

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 pdf

read our upload guide carefully

scan pages to jpg

redact in a  basic  paint or photo editor

then merge them all to one mass pdf

 

use online sites that allow you to convert to pdf, merge and reducers if the overall files is bigger than 4.8mb

 

have you a scanner or using a phone to scan/picture each page??

 

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

Thanks for that Dave! 

 

Thanks dx - I did it on my phone because our scanner broke but it all went a bit wrong. Went round to a neighbour's and somehow the pdf she made was also too big. I'll ask if I can go over tomorrow and I'll follow your instructions dx. So will attempt it again!

 

In the meantime, the second VCS WS arrived today in the post. It was written by someone else and they make different points (including some elaborate quotes from the supreme court and did mention POFA). 

 

Would you prefer I upload both WS's at the same time? Or shall I create a new thread? Or shall I upload one VCS WS, write my reply WS and then upload the second VCS WS afterwards and write the response to that one? What would be easiest/most efficient for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd like to see Simon's WSs first so we can see what he's arguing and what lies he has told, which you can counter in your WSs.

 

For the moment keep to one thread as it was a single parking event.  If necessary later we can split the cases after seeing the WSs.

 

How about using this free software?  https://www.ilovepdf.com/compress_pdf

 

I used this recently for altering PDFs for work, and I've just done an experiment on compression and it made the file 66% smaller.

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

Hi everyone,

 

Finally managed to get one scanned, compressed & uploaded! Thanks for the tip, Dave.

 

Will try and get the second one scanned &  uploaded in the next few days.

 

Do scroll right to the end of the WS because they put their 'evidence' on the last page.

Extra Compressed VCS WS FINAL(1).pdf

Edited by FTMDave
Personal details showing
Link to post
Share on other sites

reverse trespass - no!

1.5hrs free parking - i bet not!!

2015 contract - no sign of the annual fee since 2015....

uses soooo many descriptions of who parked and who might be responsible - designed to confuse the judge!!! 

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

You left your mother's name showing in the Letter Before Claim plus the car reg was showing in one of the photos, but no worries, I've redacted them.

 

So did your parents walk off site?

 

Don't worry if they did, I'm just asking so we know if we need to argue (a) they did but it's irrelevant or (b) they didn't and the VCS attendant is telling porkies.

 

In any case, what sort of weirdo spies on a couple of pensioners and follows them around to see where they go?!  😱

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

Thanks @dx100uk - do you have anything I could cite for that reverse trespass is not a thing? Just that the landowner is the only person who can bring a claim in trespass?

 

@FTMDave- thank you for catching that and redacting. 

 

So they parked at the carpark and then went to the Citygate garage - it all looks like part of the same retail site but turns out its not. I've attached images so you can see what I mean. 

Pictures of VK.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the photos.  Everything is clear.

 

One last question.  After going to Citygate garage, did they go to any of the shops in the Brook Retail Car Park?

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

no landowner or their minions can claim nor dictate that you are not allowed to leave their premise ...no such contract in law can ever exist... thats called imprisonment....

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

Interesting - thank you! 

 

I'll try and get the second WS up in the next couple of days when the neighbour is free again. That one has a different angle.

 

VCS paralegals do love their copy & paste so that you have to read pages of their repeated nonsense don't they? 

 

Well, I wish you all a good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, obviously you need to get on with drafting your WS for your mum's case.  This should be fairly straightforward, I know you've been here for a while and have already done a lot of superb research.  Your arguments need to be (in no particular order)

   - Suing the wrong person (Simon should be suing the driver, and hasn't followed POFA provisions to transfer liability to the keeper)

   - Locus Standi (Simon is not the landowner, the contract shown to the court is not with the landowner and in any case ran out in 2018)

   - Planning Permission (lack of which means a criminal offence which means no contract formed)

   - Predatory practices (forbidden in the industry CoP,  you believe the patrol officer removed the NTD from the windscreen, your mum was only a few metres off site at a business she mistakenly thought was part of the retail park, the patrol officer could easily have mitigated the loss but did not do so) *

   - Rubbish PCN (mentions nothing about leaving the site but instead goes on about a restricted area) *

   - Double Recovery (all in Alaska101's WS).

 

I like the way Alaska101 has given titles to the various sections of the WS so the judge can easily see which legal arguments are included.

 

*  EDIT  Perhaps these should go together, after all issuing a PCN which deliberately hides what you're supposed to have done wrong and makes it difficult to formulate an appeal I suppose is a predatory practice.

Edited by FTMDave
Typos
  • 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 have been looking at the WS that VCS have sent. It is mercifully much shorter than many of his previous attempts that we have seen. I am surprised that Jake had the gall to say  in a letter of a half hearted offer to settle prior to a Court hearing  that VCS had a strong case. 

I have used the number system used by VCS to point out areas of contention in their WS but will jump about the WS a bit.

The Contract

There is no link between Zurich Assurance and GBR Phoenix Beard in the contract. Nor can I find any link between the online when putting the two names together.  The chain of command therefore between the Client and the contractor is not there. It stops at GBR Phoenix Beard and they went into liquidation in October 2019. In any event the contract had already ended in 2018 as it was a 3 year contract not a rolling contract.

The contract has not been validly executed as either the GBR director hs not been identified even assuming that it ws signed by a director as Mr Abrams was not a director. They need to be put to strict proof that there was ever a valid contract with proper links to Zurich assurance.. If there was, then put them to strict proof that there was a new contract as that one is out of date. If there is a new contract with GBR, was it still valid after the liquidation.

 

The Notice to Driver

There has not been one produced  and yet at point 32 in the WS the patrol officer observed the motorist apparently leaving the car park. If there was no PCN issued at that time  then the driver should have received an NTK within 14 days to be able to transfer liability to the keeper . Waiting till 28 days have elapsed means that transference of liability to the keeper has not been achieved as the timing of their  NTK was outside the  14 day limit.

 

The Notice to Keeper

It has already been established that the NTK was issued too late to be able to transfer the liability to the keeper. But there is a more serious fault with their PCN. From their photos, it is quite clear that the car was perfectly parked between the white lines.  As there is no requirement in the car park  for permits, the car could not therefore have been parked in either a restricted or prohibited area. So the incident never happened. Stating that leaving the car park area means the car is parked in a resticted area is laughable.

In addition the PCN is supposed to quote the period of time that the alleged breach occurs under PoFA. There is only one time mentioned so VCS are put to strict proof that the car remained in the car park for more than the ten minutes grace period allowed by the IPC Code of Conduct. If they cannot do that then their case should fail as they have no way to prove how long the car was there.

 

In any event the NTK was also invalid since the wording did not comply with either  PoFA Schedule 4 S8 2[ [f] or 9 2] [f] which is a further reason to prevent the transference of liability to the keeper.

 

Rest of the WS

8] No where on their T&Cs is there a contravention named "Parked in a resticted/ prohibited area". Even their photos confirm that the car was parked correctly .So as there was no breach for that situation, no offence was committed.

9] no contract can be formed on entering the car park. Under the IPC Code of Conduct  "Definitions" there is a ten minute grace period.

10] already stated that the reason for the PCN was not on their T&Cs

25] this appears to try and justify that Zurich is involved in the contract yet there is no link to prove their involvement.

31] walking off the premises may be a breach of their T&Cs providing their was a valid contract-was there? But that was not the breach on the PCN. In any event did the driver subsequently visit the shops and spend money there thus making them a valid customer.

39] The IPC states that membere must comply with all legal requirements-

                25.1 The Code complements the relevant legislation and related guidance, which will define the overall standard of conduct for all Operators. Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.

VCS seem unaware that they require permission from the local council for their signage under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations. They are also in breach of PoFA Schedule 4  S12

 

12(1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

(3)The provision made under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, include provision—

(a)requiring notices of more than one kind to be displayed on any relevant land;

(b)as to the content or form of any notices required to be displayed; and

(c)as to the location of any notices required to be displayed.

 

So not only have they not complied with the fourth condition of PoFA which should render their case invalid on its own, they should not be allowed to be provided with driver information from the DVLA.

40] there are several reasons why VCS cannot transfer liability to the keeper

41] as the Claimant cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability, they are put to strict proof that the keeper was the driver.  {here EL21 you can mention how many people do have access to your parents car as well as other drivers with insurance for their own car are permitted to drive ypur parents cars albeit under 3rd party terms.

42] there  can be  no relevant obligation or relevant contract and you are asking the Court to reject their claim in its entirety as having completely no merit.

47] how the paralegal can sign the statement of truth knowing that the £60 debt recovery charge has been thrown out of Court time and time again Some Judges have gone as far as describing it as an abuse of process and others  complaining that it is an attempt at double recovery. 

 

Here is a  judge explaining why the charge is wrong

The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield

 a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html

 ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''

48] point out to the Judge how unlikely it is that the WS authors never appear in Court. Their statements are close to the line and sometimes over the line of veracity. By not having to submit to questioning they never face the risk of a Judge accusing them of perjury. It is time this practice was stamped out.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...