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

[EL21]

Ah Dave, thanks! Yes that was the Mum/Wali's one. Okay great, so no changes, ready to be printed and sent! 

[FTMDave]

Read my post above, I've just edited it, I just thought of an extra little point you could make.

[dx100uk]

In December 2020, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle:_

 

i was

 

..........................

[FTMDave]

Onto your dad's/Ambreen's.  Excellent.

 

Keep all the points where you've attacked Ambreen, since you have justified the attacks superbly.

 

In (37) you could add the small extra bit I suggested above.

 

(38) is absolutely magnificent.

 

In (46) either there is a slight typo or the PDF programme hasn't worked well, it should read "... I cannot find planning permission for their signs which would mean a contract could not be formed between the driver and the Claimant, as you cannot form a contract with illegality.  I would like to use ..."

 

There are a number of night owls on CAG - me, dx, BN & LFI - so if logistically possible hang on to doing the printing till tomorrow morning in case they look in.  If tomorrow's work or studies make that unfeasible then fine, what you've written is brilliant, print out now, and send off your bombshells to Simon tomorrow!

[EL21]

Thanks Dave - that's super, super helpful! I appreciate it! 

 

I can definitely hold off going to the post office until tomorrow early afternoon.

 

So if anyone has an additional comments / typos to point out / thoughts / contributions to make then if possible please before 1pm tomorrow because I'll hit print and walk to the post office then.

 

Massive thanks Caggers for all your help so far! 

[FTMDave]

You're welcome!

 

Well done to you and your parents for fighting back.  Sadly, so many people are frightened of court and give in.

 

We all know the PPCs are filth, but this following & intimidating your mum is a new low, even for them.  Given the recent horrendous crime against a woman on her own in London that we all know about, I am starting to have some extremely bloody-minded ideas about how Simon could be severely embarrassed once the court cases are over.  Anyway, that's for later, for the moment it's time to concentrate on winning the cases.

[lookinforinfo]

Very well done El. Your parents should be proud of your work. I cannot believe that VCS will proceed with either case as there has been no breach. So I would include Jake's letter where they say that they believe they have a strong case to show VCS up for what they are. A bunch of crooks. I would also add that while there was no breach of their T&Cs it must mean that your parents had their GDPR breached by VCS and you understand that the current rate is at least £750 per breach and I would ask the Judge to charge  them for their breach.

Also I have a feeling that their large entrance sign was not there originally. Put them to strict proof of when it was erected. I am not even sure if their pole mounted one was their originally either. It isn't legible in any event when driving into the car park. And neither of the signs appear to coincide with their map. In fact that large sign doesn't seem to be there at all on the map.

[EL21]

Tomorrow is the day! 

 

I was wondering if there were any good threads / resources that set out what costs to ask for? Just want to be prepared in case we get to that stage.

 

I did look myself but didn't find something that was clear - just someone saying they didn't get work recouped because they took a holiday day // someone saying because it via telephone they didn't get costs. So any guidance? Presumably I can at least ask for postage/envelopes/printing?

 

Also, if you have any final tips for the actual hearing - let me know!

 

Thanks!

[FTMDave]

You should of course win.  Easily.  But as judges can be useless just the same as you can be unlucky and find someone useless working in any job, I don't like to jump the gun.

 

I'm not an expert on costs but from bits I've picked up on CAG I think it goes something like this.

 

Prepare two lists of costs.  One with postage, printing, etc.  Another with all of that plus five hours at £19 per hour (?) preparation work.

 

In case of victory ask that the judge consider if VCS have acted unreasonably during litigation according to CPR 27.14(2)(g) - entrapping motorists at the site/issuing a PCN for a fictitious offence/pursuing the fictitious case all the way to court/lying and pretending to ask the court for £220 fictitious costs/anything else you can add to this list. 

 

If the judge agrees, whip out the list for higher costs.  if the judge disagrees, ask for the smaller amount.

 

See what the other regulars add during the course of the day as I only have a very vague notion of costs issues.

[EL21]

So this can be added to the success thread!

 

Odd day - was listed for 11.30am, then rang to say it was going to be at 12.15pm then pushed back to 2.15pm.

 

They had a 'Mr Tate' as a lawyer.

 

Standing:

The judge briefly went through standing and gave it to them. He relied upon the caselaw (Beavis and the Buckingham palace quote) and VCS v HMRC that VCS had stated, saying that even though the service agreement was out of date, it didn't matter to the motorist. 

 

Notice to Driver:

Judge brought up the timestamped picture of the NtD in the window. Their lawyer said something like, 'oh how odd there's something on the window. It's blue though, not yellow, so it's not a PCN and I don't know what it could be but it's not the company policy to have blue PCNs...' 

Judge said because my parents hadn't seen the NtD, we couldn't be sure that it was an NtD and that VCS had not mentioned a NtD in their WS. But he wouldn't take any questions on what else it could be, considering it was a patrolled, small car park and the driver was only gone for a short time so it's unlikely someone else put something on the windscreen...  

 

Notice to Keeper:

Judge said because there wasn't a NtD, the NtK had arrived on time (within 14 days). But then he said the NtK was not compliant with Para 9, Sch 4 POFA. Specifically Para 9(2) Schedule 4 - so the specified period of parking and describing the circumstances during which it was in breach 'was not adequately described.'  The judge said this was mandatory. Mr Tate/lawyer, said it was unrealistic that a parking warden could put the times in and out as this would be time-consuming and impractical. Judge said it wasn't adequate. I would maybe mention this in other Brook Retail Park cases - that if they choose not to put an NtD then they have to use para 9, which is mainly meant to be for remote detection, but that's not the motorists problem... 

 

Then said on that basis claim dismissed. Mr Tate asked for the right to appeal. Judge said no (but then something about a circuit judge?).

 

We didn't get to discuss costs. He also dismissed the other case in the interest for time as the facts were identical.

 

I am really baffled about the whole thing - on the one hand, I feel morally vindicated that not a penny goes to that awful, unscrupulous company. If anything, I take some comfort that they had to pay for a lawyer. But on the other hand, you do put time and money (printing, posting, driving to take pictures) into the process. Not an easy thing to do if you're balancing lots of other priorities. Still though, I think I would do the whole thing again.

 

Massive thanks CAGGERS! @FTMDave @lookinforinfo @dx100uk

 

Donation on the way!

Edited October 27, 2021 by EL21

[honeybee13]

Well done after all your hard work.   Some of what was said is confusing, I agree, and it's a shame about your costs but you still won and as you say, you cost VCS money which is something.

 

Thank you for the donation, it will help us to stay here and advise other people in the same position.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[dx100uk]

[brassnecked]

Excellent Simple Simon has lost more cash.

[FTMDave]

Judges often do this, conceding points to both sides so as to come over as fair.  Then they home in on one point to settle the case quickly.

 

At least one of your parents didn't have to sit through their case.

 

Your WS was a work of genius and will help many other motorists in future.  Considering that in your first post you referred to your parents as "old, risk averse, stressed" they deserve a huge amount of credit for standing up to these crooks all the way to a court case - and winning.

 

Your parents are probably fed up with the whole thing and just glad it's over, however it did cross my mind that your mum might want to report the intimidation to the police.  Given what is in the news at the moment, they might even take it seriously.  I doubt there's enough evidence for a prosecution, but it would be a nice shock for VCS's bod if a copper turned up to have a word.

 

Now this is extremely bloody minded ... but that's just me ... given your WSs were far superior to Wali's & to Ambreen's, I did have the silly thought of you e-mailing their litigation department with yours and offering to write their WSs in future.  Of course you would never really lower yourself to working for VCS, just me being bloody minded and wanting to rub it in

 

Anyway, well done to the three of you!

[lookinforinfo]

Well done El21.

 

You put a lot of time and research into that WS which paid off.

 

Funny that the Judge only mentioned that the NTK was  not compliant with regard to the time period but not query that you had not breached their T&Cs so never liable for a PCN in the first place.

 

Pity that since had the Judge thrown out the case you would have a great chance of claiming several pounds from them through a breach of GDPR.

 

I have used that time period argument before as the reason for the NTK being non compliant and it hasn't been mentioned by the Judge  so you have to put everything in to your WS since the Judge only has to pick one of the  points in your favour to throw out the case.