VCS CCTV PCN - No Stopping - Outside entrance to southend airport SS2 6YF (Lay Rep too) ***Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

If you post up their WS we can all make suggestions which could save you writing at least one new WS.

[brassnecked]

So if you post up your revision so we can look, then we have something to work from when VCS send you their cut and paste masterpiece(NOT)  that Ambreen or Wali has concocted.

[nightnajjers]

Hello.

See attached revised statement.

What happens if I do not receive the Parasites WS before I have to post mine (which will be this week?

I have not included the bits after page 10 as I do not know that is what he/she will say

 

 

Defendants WS V3.pdf

[FTMDave]

Reads damn well to me.

 

I don't understand why you have included so little on the Unicorn Food Tax.  This is one of the easiest ways to undermine VCS and involves no work as you can copy & paste given they make the £60 up in every case.  Even if by some horror you lost the judge would probably refuse VCS the £60.

 

To answer your question, if VCS's WS doesn't turn up then you can emphasise that in yours and ask for theirs not to be accepted by the court.  It'd be easy to guess what they were going to say as essentially it's the same tripe in all airport no stopping cases.  Look at post 119 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417985-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-london-southend-airportclaim-dismissed-now-vcs-asking-for-leave-to-appeal/page/5/#comments

 

(I say post 119 but sometimes the post count goes wonky, if it's not post 119 it'll be a couple of posts above or below post 119).

 

The bye-laws are in post 135 if you want to use them.

 

When is the court case?  When is the WS deadline?

[brassnecked]

The Unicorn feed tax is an easy way to get at them, and as FTMDave says their WS is likely to be essentially same as every other airport no stopping WS they knock out.

[nightnajjers]

Thank you  for  the above.

I have now included the two Court cases re. abuse of process which seem to be cut and shut as far as the extra claim is concerned.

I did not include the bye laws as I did not think it could be disputed . I was thinking there was enough to bore the judge to death already.

Looking at the VCS ws  I see they are will say that  that bye laws are arbitary.

The case is on 19th so as I see it,  To be in line with submitting it no later than 14 days and to be sure it arrives in time   I should post mine this Friday.

[FTMDave]

Remember you can e-mail the court their copy.

 

It's best to hang till the very last minute if you can in the hope of seeing VCS's nonsense.

[lookinforinfo]

Very dangerous to assume that the Judge will be fully aware of all the legal aspects in a PoFA case. Especially as you know that VCS are a duplicitous bunch who will say that Byelaws are arbitrary in PoFA cases when they are not. 

 

In the new Private parking Code of Practice Section 14 [3] it states quite clearly "3. Where byelaws have been made, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them."

As they take precedence, they can hardly be arbitrary. I would include it since the Judge may not be sure on the situation and take the VCS lie into consideration. You could lose on that point since they could then claim that the land is relevant land when it isn't. 

[nightnajjers]

Hello.

I included the POFA and the by-laws thank you .

Their WS arrived after I sent mine, although I don't think I could have managed to add anything further as a result of their WS (attached) as contained  pages of court cases that I had little hope of understanding or using in a short time. 

They have included reference to four cases two of which seem to be appeals, one with a non attendant respondent,  none of them are anything to do with Airport cases, which I find rather worrying.

At it is an Airport case I was expecting that they would include the by-laws are arbitrary  ,  but no, nothing as far as I can tell about by-laws??. 

Am I being ambushed here?

 

VCS WS excerpt.pdf

[brassnecked]

Hmm a 2002 wheel clamping case  Vine v Waltham Forest LBC they are clutching at straws there

 

Point 24 is a word salad VCS v Idle/Ward

Whether there was a contract with  motorists who stopped their vehicles in whereby it was not prohibited"

 

The other's will be along later  but they are scraping bottom using wheel clamping cases to justify their position.

[dx100uk]

STD VCS was then!!

 

Trying to hide byelaws , look here not at the byelaws. You must push them home as well as RTO's.  Not land they can ticket you over .

 

Dx

[brassnecked]

Yes VCS try to go behind the Bylaws and push them as an  irrelevance this now seems to be their standard MO in No Stopping cases.  In reality VCS can  present foprward all the cases in Contract they like but they can't trump By laws unless they can bamboozle the judge on the day.

[lapwing_larry]

Is there a beginning to the WS?

 

Were exhibits provided?

 

What is shown is clearly focussing on only one aspect of the defence i.e. the claimed contract, so evidence of adequate signage is key.

 

It is interesting to note what they omit to address in this statement. Byelaws being one along with lack of standing

 

I would not call this an ambush. A skeleton argument sent the evening before the case would be an ambush. Happened in my case but they still lost.

[nightnajjers]

The case regarding wheel clamping at para 21  "Although this case relates to wheel clamping it has long been held the the principle remains the same where in fact clamping is now substituted for a Parking charge Notice"

 

I had not thought about omission of the by-laws as a tactic.

 

Yes exhibits were included. The previous pages were just the stopping and breach of contract stuff. They included  copies of the court cases referred to andphotos of the signage, with the exeption of the entrance one, all facing the side door of a vehicle and the repeater ones at the height of a vehicle door.

.

[lapwing_larry]

If you could also upload the beginning of the witness statement that would be helpful.

 

Also, what they show in terms of signs in the exhibits can also be useful. VCS are not always accurate/truthful. I am very familiar with the signs at the airport site and their inadequacy. They sometimes claim signs that were not actually there or that the signs say something they clearly don't.

 

[nightnajjers]

Thank you.The other page of WS the first page is all about  jakes employment.  I can't do the photos of signs says files are too big

 

I think they must be getting hard up and running low on ink as they sent the last two in black. The amount of paperwork this has generated is unbelievable, it should be declared  an environmental disaster.

.

 

VCS WS Page 2.pdf

[honeybee13]

If your files are too big, have a read of our upload guide on how to reduce them.

 

HB

[nightnajjers]

Thank you

I did try that but.........  I did get one from google maps which looks the same one they sent.. I will have another go later or get my daughter to do it tomorrow!

claimants ws

Screenshot Google Maps.pdf Claimants WS.pdf

[lapwing_larry]

Well the sign in scan 8 is almost certainly not there. So they can be put to strict proof on that. The others nicely show how they can't be read by a driver without stopping as they are low and perpendicular to the road.

[nightnajjers]

Thank you. I will be use the mising sign, and  as you say, I can't see how they can argue that signs below and facing a passenger door are as they say "Prominently displayed".

 

If I can get the "not relevant land"  fact over to the judge, the illegal signs are not so important in the case.

 

And if they did not want vehicles to stop at  the pedestrian crossing they should have installed a pedestrian bridge. Would have saved all that trouble of sending out PCNs

Edited September 5, 2022 by nightnajjers
missing onfo

[dx100uk]

Nothing illegal about any sign on private land?

Dx

[nightnajjers]

Without planning pemission?  I thought that was one of the arguments?

[dx100uk]

Depends who put them there and if they had permission from whom can legally grant it to them to do so, without that yes poss illegal.

 

But that doesn't remove the fact they probably don't apply anyway, as the roads I bet are controlled by byelaws or RTO's . 

[nightnajjers]

As the WS says"my company was prominently displaying signs on the land" I think we can say that they erected  the signs or caused them to be erected. 

Planning permission must be required for large signs. I am sure if we erected signs on our front drives or gardens the local Council would soon give us a visit.  yes I hope by-laws rule.

 

 

[dx100uk]

but it doesnt say WHERE on 'the land', ok i bet theres a plan with 100's of pins and generic templates of what the signs SHOULD look like, but no actual picture of the sign that supposedly relates to your speculative invoice. and as larry says one is def NOT THERE.

 

ive merged everything to date in claimants WS in one of your posts above 

but you must post up EVERYTHING from their WS at some point soon please 

 

13 pages is not the whole WS.