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

[Gick]

Lookingforinformation, brilliant work. Just to point out a typo in point 48   point out to the Judge how unlikely it is that the WS authors never appear in Court.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Gick. I didn't see that at the time. You are quite right that it should be "ever" rather than "never." Actually I changed the sentence around after I had started it when never would have been correct. On looking at the sentence now it would have been better had I said "point out to the judge how unlikely it is for WS authors to appear in Court.

[lookinforinfo]

It is a strange reason to pursue a motorist for being parked in a restricted area when the actual breach [if it could ever be called a breach] was for walking off the premises. It's a bit like Gick perhaps when he was still in the Force arresting some one for theft but actually charging him with walking down the street which isn't an offence. 

On reflection, VCS did not have a reasonable cause to pursue you for the reason they did. The car was parked perfectly so it is a GDPR breach. 

 

[EL21]

Hello, finally here is the second VCS WS.

 

It was written by a different paralegal so does have a different flair.

 

I noticed this one was full of QR codes on nearly each page and have tried to cover them all. Are they using that to find us in these forums?

 

Please ignore that the page numbers are a little messed up - I used the scan from the other WS to put the contract with GBR Phoenix in and I didn't scan the second side of their notices or the LBA. Not ideal, but this was the best I could do. The hardcopy does have the right page numbers. 

 

Let me know if you have thoughts!

 

Apologies - I edited it but then it wouldn't let me upload it in my original message.

 

+ to add she redacted the schedules of their contract with GBR Phoenix without realising they sent me an unredacted version before.

VCS WS 2 Redacted & Compressed.pdf

Edited September 18, 2021 by EL21
Uploaded wrong version

[FTMDave]

So Ambreen rather than Wally this time.

 

Fleetwood Town v Sunderland is taking up my time at the moment but I promise to have a good read of the whole thing this evening.

[FTMDave]

Well Ambreen is mercifully less repetitive than Wally.  However, the "meat" of her WS comes down to the same thing.  "We put up lots & lots & lots & lots of signs and the driver walked off site".  I don't think you need two threads and I think fundamentally your two WSs can be the same based on the arguments in posts 101-105.

 

As you're going to state you think the attendant removed the windscreen ticket and also failed to mitigate your mistake, I'm thinking it might be worth your parents backing each other up.  They could each write a short statement saying that on that day they were with "the driver and the driver's party", that they all visited the Citygate garage together which was a matter of metres off site, and when they returned to the car there was no windscreen ticket.

 

Have they got any other proof of visiting the Citygate garage?  Did they phone before or make an appointment for example? 

 

It also crossed my mind to briefly acknowledge you agree with Ambreen about the signage so that argument can be got rid of (she hasn't got much else).  Then I thought, even better, say you agree about the number of signs but that they were erected illegally and go on to the bit about planning permission.

 

Regarding LFI's point 48.  Not only will Ambreen not be in court (VCS's paralegals never, ever are) and therefore unavailable for cross examination, neither will the car park attendant who engaged in predatory practises.

 

When you have time post up a draft of your WS and we'll help to tweak where necessary.

[EL21]

Hi Dave,

Hope you enjoyed the football and thanks for looking over the WS.

 

I have two questions:

 

1) Strategy - for my mum's car, considering 3 of us were insured on it before it was sold (me, mum, dad) do you think it's worth just playing the 'sue the driver not me' and evade whether she was there or not? And then say POFA wasn't fulfilled so can't be held liable at keeper. I wanted to point out in the WS they should be able to identify the driver considering they had a patrol officer and their privacy notice on their sign says: 

 

'These images will include the recording of the vehicle number plate and may also include images of any person(s) associated with the vehicle. Images are collected for the purpose of identifying the driver or keeper responsible for any charge arising from failure to follow the contractual terms and conditions of the site.’

 

Obviously in practice they won't have taken images cos that would be a GDPR/privacy nightmare to store. But its their threat, so why not ask them to produce it?

 

Or should you think its best to to make the statement as you suggested and say they were there and keep it vague about who was driving, like the wording you used suggests?

 

2) Planning permission: I can't find anything in the portal, I emailed the council and they sent me a booklet about advertising and signs and asked which ones I meant. So I'll reply with pictures. But aside from hopefully the council replying saying they don't have permission - I don't know how else to prove that they didn't have planning permission. 

 

Sorry I have so many questions - writing two WS's (even if they overlap) is a bit of an undertaking!

 

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

Don't worry about the questions - that's what we're here for.

 

I'll try and flesh out the arguments and answer your questions at the same time.  Let's use "I" to refer to your mum as it's her WS.

 

1.  Sequence of events

Describe briefly that the driver parked in the retail park and visited Citygate garage, thinking it was part of the retail park.  Upon return to the vehicle there was no windscreen ticket or indication of any infringement.  Later I received a PCN for parking in a restricted area, then various threatening letters, after a Letter Before Action which I replied to and finally a claim form.

 

2.  Locus standi

VCS are not the landowner.  The contract they have provided is not with the landowner, it is with another company, it ran out in 2018, the company it is with went into liquidation in 2019, the contract cannot possibly be valid.

 

3.  No keeper liability

VCS should be suing the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA (you know all about the 29-56 day stuff, quote it all from POFA).

 

(Yes!  Good find on their sign!  Include the sign and say VCS maintain they have images that can identify the driver and yet have not identified me as such).

 

(Yes, keep it vague as to who was driving, it's up to VCS to prove, not you.  They could easily have used POFA correctly but have complete contempt for the law so haven't).

 

4.  Planning permission

VCS go to great pains in their WS to emphasise their signage, none of which I disagree with.  However I do not believe they have planning permission for these signs which is a criminal offence under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations and means no contract could be formed.  I have requested proof of planning permission from VCS by means of a CPR request but they have not replied.  I have searched XXXXX council planning portal and I cannot find planning permission for the signs.  Their CoP incudes that they must obtain all legal permissions yet they have not done so (look up the bit on the IPC CoP):

 

(You can't prove a negative.  The work you've done here is more than enough.  They have to prove they have planning permission yet have not).

 

5.  Predatory practises

These are forbidden by the CoP (again, look the section up)

(a)  The driver did not find the Notice to Driver on their return to the car although it appears in VCS's photos.  As the car park is patrolled, it is unlikely that a member of the public removed it.  I believe the patrol officer photographed it and removed it.  This is a well-known tactic used by PPCs so that the motorist misses the chance to pay during the discounted period.  I enclose a statement by Mr XXXXX which confirms what i say.

(b)  The driver visited Citygate garage which is a matter of metres away from the retail site, in fact the driver thought it to be part of the site.  The patrol officer could easily have mitigated the loss by informing the driver of their mistake, yet did not.

(c)  The parking violation alleged was to have left the site, yet the PCN is for a completely different violation, parking in a restricted area.  The area was not restricted, there were no permits to show or payment to be made, it is a free public car park.  This error was made either out of incompetence or deliberately to confuse me and make it impossible to appeal.  In any case in their WS VCS are alleging a completely different breach of contract that that stated in their PCN and in all their previous correspondence

I would point out that the patrol officer will not attend the hearing so I will not be able to cross examine him, and I am confident that neither will the WS author since from research I have carried out I have discovered that neither Ambreen Arshad nor Mohammed Wali (VCS's other paralegal) who always write the company's WSs ever attend hearings, presumably to avoid cross examination.  Its is especially easy to attend on-line hearings during the COVID pandemic as no travelling is involved.

 

6.  Unicorn Food Tax

Easy, copy from Alaska 101

[EL21]

You are wonderful, Dave!!

 

I shall get the WS drafted soon as I can! Thank you so much for your help!

[FTMDave]

Just remembered!

 

Now I know this is no laughing matter for either your or your parents, but I guarantee if you read the following  http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1  by the end you won't be able to contain the giggles 

 

On a more serious note, quote this in your WS as a persuasive case in (5).  Here there is VCS, someone who left the site, no locus standi, lots of stuff similar to your parents' cases.  And VCS took one hell of a hammering!         

[lookinforinfo]

Yes that VCS v Ibbotson was very funny. "Bring your toothbrush".

 

It's just a shame that VCS haven't been called out on further cases although yours could be one. What they are taking you to court on is not even on their T&Cs! I think you should state in your WS that they have breached your GDPR when bringing this case since the car was perfectly parked.

 

Tell the Court that the going rate for such a breach especially as VCS have averred that it was a breach should be in the region of £750 to £1000. Had they said you left the premises thus breaching their rules that would have been different but to pursue for a breach that isn't on their list is absolutely ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if VCS don't bother to turn up for this one. 

 

Also do mention that you are not sure which WS from VCS you are meant to be following. But whichever one they use, neither of them produced a Notice to Driver so the NTK should have been delivered within 14 days if they wanted to rely on Keeper liability.  I haven't had a close look at Ambreen's WS compared to Walli's but it might be good to see where they differ and call them out and even better if their stories do not match.  One of their Statements of Truth is conceivably wrong.

 

On 31 and 32 of Ambreen's WS you could ask when was the IPC ever the arbiter in a Court of Law about what could be charged over and above the £100 agreed by PoFA. Indeed it is mainly because of the blatant greed of the IPC and BPA that the Government are quite rightly taking control of the CoP where both IPC and BPA have failed so lamentably to run themselves .

 

Ambreen witters on about VCS v HMRC 2013. what she failed to mention was that this was in a car park with permits being required. She also failed to mention the next line by Lord Justice Hallet-

1. Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking. So it is necessary to consider whether it did. Obviously in your case EL 21 VCS did NOT enter into a contract.

Edited September 18, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

Both Walli at point 41] and Ambreen 14/15] make the erroneous point that they can rely on Keeper liability. Simon has got tweedlee and tweedledum working for him. They cannot. Nor can they assume that the keeper was the driver.

 

In this case it doesn't matter who was driving. The cars were  parked in the correct spots and there is no such parking restriction on their T&Cs as Parked in a Restricted or  prohibited area.

 

Both of them seem to think that there is a contractual clause when there isn't. The comparison here is a policeman arresting them for theft but then on the charge sheet accuse them of walking down the street! You couldn't make it up. It's a real dogs breakfast.

Edited October 6, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[EL21]

Hi there,

 

Here is my draft WS. It is long - but VCS just said such stupid stuff that I wasn't sure how to make it more concise.

 

Let me know your feedback!

 

Thanks

DRAFT WS compressed and redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

You have put a lot of work in!

Well done to you & your parents.

Great detective work re Savills.

Superb idea to "hoist Simon by his own" in (23).

 

"I am not sure why the Claimant is asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary".  Wonderful stuff.

 

I think I may have just read the best WS ever written on CAG.  Simon is onto one hell of a kicking here.

 

Just need to go through it again now with a fine tooth comb.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

That is an excellent WS-you have put a lot of work in to it. Anywhere about 50 points long  for a WS is probably about right when you have such verbiage from the VCS  WS.

 

[FTMDave]

On the basis that even the winners of a World Cup get some little things wrong during the match, a few suggestions for tweaking.

 

I would cut out (21).  This argument would help VCS as they always bang on about it being more probable than improbable that the keeper was the driver.  Don't mention the balance of probabilities.  It's up to them to be put to strict proof on this.  They have POFA and can't be bothered to use it.

 

In C, given we have another case going on for the same car park, but on this occasion VCS did issue the "right" PCN, you should use that as evidence of what they could have done and blatantly haven't.

 

In (36) you could mention that not only did VCS not mitigate and therefore are causing unnecessary litigation, but they are supposed to be managing the car park and stopping non-retail park customers' cars from being there, yet deliberately allowed a non-retail park customer's car to eat up a parking space. 

 

In (40) cut out the word "technically".  That undermines your case.  It's not technical - they are criminals.

 

At the end of (41) add "Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same.  The patrol officer in this case also has an aversion to explaining himself in court".

 

In (E), I know I said to copy Alaska101's WS verbatim, but Alaska 101 turned two cost claims into three and it all gets a bit confusing.  To unconfuse it, add at the start of (45) "Returning to the additional £60 ..."

 

Beef up (44).  Change to "As per another letter dated 24th August 2021, the Claimant says they are going to seek further costs of £220 from the court during the hearing" just to show they are lying as they know full well costs are capped at £50 and so are abusing the legal process.

 

What disgraceful behaviour, following & harassing your mum.

You are damn right to continually emphasise VCS's contempt for the law.  They are taking the wee wee not just out of your mum but also the courts, which judges don't like.  Your tone is great too - just on the edge of calling them liars, but staying within formal terms.

 

Love the way you've ordered your WS.  You invite the court to strike out the claim due to A.  If the court disagree we move on to B where you invite the court to do the same.  And so on.  Superb organisation and so clear for the judge.

 

Simon will need a change of underpants when he reads this.

[EL21]

Thanks for the feedback and what a nice compliment! I'll implement the changes tomorrow and post up a final draft. Then use that to write / copy & paste the second WS.

 

I think the weakest point is definitely about the money / double costs and that's because I don't really get it.

 

£100 for charge is allowed.

£60 - debt recovery / contractual costs & interest. I've read threads on the unicorn tax, but I still don't get the abuse of process? Can I also just say that debt recovery is literally their business? It says so in the schedule of the Service Agreement that they only got paid like £12/sign and then they don't get paid to manage the car park so their business model is the PCNs so why do I need to pay for how their business is run?

£35 - what's an issue fee? 

It additionally says £25 hearing fee so I don't think the issue fee is the court fee? But I'm not sure.

 

If you have any articles or explanations I can read great - I have genuinely looked through threads and read them but money confuses me a bit!

 

Also @dx100uk you said earlier you didn't think it was actually 90 min free parking. Without being able to find the planning permission - do you have tips on where I would look to see if it's actually 2 hours free parking? Be nice to sprinkle another tidbit about them having contempt for the rules.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

El21 in many cases debt collectors take on work form the carparking crooks on a no win no fee basis. If they do win , they charge  £60 or so. Obviously when you are taken to Court, it means that the debt collector has failed. Nevertheless the crooks still add the £60 to their bill for the debt collector. That is the abuse of process since you are being charged £60 for a debt that should not be due.

 

As far as parking time is concerned, councils normally allow 3 hours for parking where their are a large number of stores. Recently there have been some councils who are now granting shorter periods for smaller shopping areas. Most times the crooks do not bother applying for permission since it can take councils a few weeks to come to a decision to grant permission. That wastes the crooks earning period especially if the council come back and ask for changes to the agreement as that wastes another few weeks.

 

Here is another case you can quote  where the Judge claimed the charge would be a penalty.

https://mail.yahoo.com/d/compose/4988938869?.intl=uk&.lang=en-GB&.partner=none&.src=fp

 

[FTMDave]

VCS can sue your mum for £100.  Yes, we know she doesn't owe it but legally they're entitled to bring the case.

 

Logically enough the court charges fees.  For a £100 case until recently the fee was £25 via MCOL or £35 manually, recently it has become a flat £35.

 

Then to actually have the court case costs VCS £25.  So far all is legit.

 

Where has the extra £60 come from?  They've just made it up.  We had a case recently where the motorist sadly lost against VCS - but the judge still disallowed the invented £60.

 

You're right that the argument is the weakest as it's unlikely your mum would win on that basis, which is why it's the final point.  Including this however does show VCS are crooks and that a part of their claim at least is a work of pure fantasy on their part.

[EL21]

Hi everyone,

 

Here's the final version for WS 1. I ought to put it in the post tomorrow for VCS and then email to the court Wednesday. Apologies for the tight turnover, I was struck down with a bug over the past few days, but if you could cast your eye over it, that would be fab!

 

I'm still working on WS 2 but that should be done by tonight/tomorrow morning. 

 

Thanks!

 

Draft WS4 redacted and compressed(1).pdf

[FTMDave]

At work at the moment but I promise to look in late this evening.

[EL21]

Hello all,

 

Here is the second WS. It's a bit of a different tone because I felt quite heated reading Ambreen's WS and she made different points to Wali. I haven't put the exhibits in so just ignore all references to that. I'll pop them in before posting. 

 

If you only have time to read one WS, then please just read the content of this one. I'm quite happy with the first WS so I'm confident sending that one.

 

Thanks and so sorry again it's so late! 

DRAFT C2 WS2 Redacted compressed.pdf

[FTMDave]

Just knocked off work now and have just read the first three points of Walley's!  Will get back to you later.

[EL21]

You're a !

[FTMDave]

I know time is of the essence, so I'll be very brief and say I have just read a masterpiece.

 

I particularly love (44).  Simon sent the letter to intimidate his court opponents.  Alaska101 turned the tables by including the letter in their WS to expose Simon's dishonesty.  You've taken it further and absolutely put the boot in about Simon lying about his costs entitlement.

 

In (27) you left the registration number showing, but I've sorted it.

 

EDIT: In (33), if you want, after "(Exhibit 9)", you could mention that this person did exactly the same as the driver and visited Citygate.

 

That was your mum's/Wali's, wasn't it?  I'll get on to your dad's/Ambreen's.

Edited October 11, 2021 by FTMDave
Extra info added