VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - appealed - Berkeley Centre Sheffield *** Claim Dismissed***

[simsplayer96]

Thank you so much for the helpful suggestions!

 

I have drafted a SWS and attached here, let me know what you think

 

My Supp WS Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

That reads very, very well.  Well done.  You've obviously put a massive amount of work in.

 

If you can, hang on till late afternoon just to see if the other regulars have comments, then e-mail the court their copy and send Simon's his as usual from the post office with the CoP.

[lookinforinfo]

In your supplemental you should add that as you have just received their initial WS you can see that the contract with the Berkeley centre is with Excel . VCS has lost many times in Court for suing motorists in their own name rather than Excel. It is well known that even though they are sister companies one cannot sue a motorist on behalf of the other company.

 

Despite being well aware of the legal situation  VCS have harassed you for several months knowing all the time that they have no Locus in this car park. In the light of this gross waste of Court and your time, not to mention a breach of your GDPR, you should respectfully ask for exemplary costs to be added when the claim is dismissed. No wonder that their para legal dare not attend this case. Despite VCS stating that they had a strong case against you, it turns out that they have no legal basis to pursue you at all.

 

To then claim that it was down to the land owner to obtain planning permission from the Council when in Excel's contract it states that all the signage that was being erected was the property of Excel it is more than disingenuous to suggest that anyone other than Excel was responsible for PP. whole WS is a dog's breakfast and almost appears to have been written the day before it was sent  to you.  You could ask for strict proof.

I doubt this case will end up in Court.

 

 Another thing. Both on their NTK and their WS they have alluded to the fact that if they cannot pursue you as the keeper

[both because the NTK was out of date and they did not comply with the PoFA wording ].......they can assume you were the driver. They cannot.

 

They have to prove that you were the driver since any other driver who has an insurance policy is allowed to drive your car plus family members named on your insurance policy.

[FTMDave]

34 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

In your supplemental you should add that as you have just received their initial WS you can see that the contract with the Berkeley centre is with Excel . VCS has lost many times in Court for suing motorists in their own name rather than Excel.

Very well spotted LFI.  I didn't notice the contract is with Excel.

 

So if the OP has time, between the current (5) and (6), a new paragraph needs to go in that not only has Ambreen not produced a contract between VCS and the landowner, but she has produced a contract showing that a completely different company, Excel Parking Services Limited, has a contract with the landowner.

 

Then at the end put the part about exemplary costs.

[simsplayer96]

Hi thanks again for the revisions! 

 

I have the second draft here, hopefully all looks good to send but if there's anything I need to change let me know!

 

I've just added the new paragraph 6, and added another paragraph at the end.

My Supp WS (1) redacted.pdf

[brassnecked]

Looks good, might be better to state the contact is in the name of Excel and VCS are suing, maybe the other's can clarify if its worth adding that in

 

here was a case they discontinued on that head.

 

Parking Prankster: VCS Spanked in Court.

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

---

VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955 25/01/2016 Claim discontinued. Costs awarded to motorist. The Prankster was contacted by a motorist shortly before th...

 

 

[dx100uk]

God yes

Wrong çlaimant

simon has lost on cases here too im sure over this?

 

dx

[simsplayer96]

I think I already added something along those lines in paragraph 6? Do you think I should change the wording?

 

Cheers

[brassnecked]

Might be worth putting the case reference from the Prankster link at the end of paragraph 6 but let the others say what they reckon first  If it is discontinued ar they carry on and lose there should be a GDPR claim against them as wrong company suing you.

[FTMDave]

The thing is that in the Prankster case referred to VCS gave in and discontinued, it wasn't as if the judge found against them.

 

Personally I think the SWS is fine as it is and good to go in the morning.

 

Wrong company suing, wrong person being sued, etc. - there should be more than enough to see off Simon.  I doubt Ambreen will be very happy when she opens simsplayer96's letter on Monday morning

[brassnecked]

Yes correct FTMDave, was just a thought that it might persuade Simon was hiding to nothing as is very similar, however as you say is good to go as is.

[simsplayer96]

Hey everyone, so just an update from court the other day! We won, claim was dismissed by the judge! 

 

Notes I took from the hearing:

 

• Mr Shar? was representing VCS
• Judge started out straight away questioning VCS locus standi with regards to the excel contract. Shar had no idea about the excel contract, which was in their WS haha.
• Shar asked to call office to get new contract, judge said no.
• Judge interrogated VCS on their confusing signs with excel and VCS. Shar said that he couldn't see any signs with both VCS and Excel, until the judge got angry and showed him the photos of the signs.
• Judge was confused with how VCS had decided I was the driver when I told them I wasn't.
• Judge and Shar argued for a while about using POFA (Shar said he wasn’t relying on POFA but then kept relying on it when explaining why they want me to pay). Judge was very angry with him, and kept telling him that he is wrong.
• Judge states that I was bailee not agent of driver (Broadly, the transfer of possession (and not ownership) of goods by the owner (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) so that they might be used for a specified purpose on condition that they are returned to, or in accordance with the instructions of, the bailor, or kept until he reclaims them.)

Problems Judge has with case - Shar’s response - Judge’s verdict:

 

1. How claimant has locus standi when contract is with Exel - We can adjourn and find contract - Rejected as he’s had plenty time already
2. Inconsistency with contracting party - Cannot answer, doesn’t know - No certainty, failed to prove either side of contract
3. Not complied with POFA, how can you impose liability on keeper - She is driver presumed, if not driver then I must have given permission so law of agency applies - Must conform with POFA and have not, rejected.

The judge denied my 27.14G, as he said I couldn't prove that the claimant was acting unreasonably?? I thought this was really unfair as I have spent quite a lot of money on copying, postage, and hours of my time preparing this defence.

 

The Judge was absolutely furious with the Claimant, and their behaviour, so I'm not sure how he then could say that they were acting reasonably? What do you guys think?

 

Is this worth a follow up for breach of GDPR?

 

I feel like I have a valid case, but obviously I'm not very well versed in law.

 

Most importantly, thank you so much to everyone of you who helped me with this case, I really really appreciate it, this has been an incredibly difficult time in my life with this impending decision, and you got me through it!

 

[dx100uk]

excellent result 

well done 

 

and well done CAG

 

please think about donating to keep us here for you and others

everything is free inc our advice, we don't get paid but our website hosters/servers do charge us.

[lookinforinfo]

Well done. You must be very happy. 

Yes you do have a case of having you GDPR breached. They had no chance with Excel and VCS signage from the start. However rather than take them to court and thereby costing you money. you could write to VCS complaining that they had no right to take you to Court in the first place as confirmed by the Judge. 

Ask them if they want to quietly settle out of Court for £500 or go to Court where you will be asking for a much higher sum and may well consider adding on an extra £60 in debt recovery fees should they prevaricate or not respond.

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[brassnecked]

Superb Bet Shah was knocked for six when the judge knocked the pathetic attempt to circumvent POFA with Law of Agency, amazed he didn't trot out AJH  Films to try to ground Keeper was driver.

[notpayingapenny]

Congratulations on your win! I hope my case will also be thrown out as yours was because VCS have pursued me solely on the grounds of me being the registered keeper but have no evidence of who was driving and I refused to disclose that information too. Sounds like it is indeed illegal for them to not comply with POFA regulations!

Congratulations once again ... happy to see wins on this forum!