VCS/ELMS Spy car 2*PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform for 1 of them - 'NO STOPPING' BP Station East Midlands airport

[FTMDave]

This disgraceful company is well known to the forum - as are their defeats in court, of which they got two last week.

 

You are absolutely right not to pay. 

 

Can you please fill in the forum sticky - sorry, twice - so we can see what is wrong with these invoices.  VCS never bother to comply with the law, because, unlike you, unfortunately the majority of motorists just pay up.

 

BTW, these are not fines, they are invoices, a private company has the same power you and I have to fine someone - absolutely zero.

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

I've had to hide your post as you've left your name, address, vehicle registration & PCN number all showing on both attachments.  These need to be redacted.  

 

You have every chance of beating VCS, and the best thing you can do at the moment is to read some other VCS airport threads to familiarise yourself with the company and the legal system.

[FTMDave]

Making mistakes is normal when something is new to you - when I came across the site I realised I'd been getting stuff wrong for years.  Appealing was a mistake.  VCS are a bunch of crooks.  We have an airport "no stopping" case at the moment where they are trying to get money out of a motorist for stopping ... at a zebra crossing ... with a pedestrian photographed walking on it!  I kid you not.  They never, ever accept appeals.  Similarly the IAS are a bunch of crooks who always back their mates up and always find against the motorist.  The IPC parking association, the IAS appeals body & Gladstone's solicitors who make big bucks from parking cases - are all run by the same people!  No conflict of interest there!

 

Before you appealed VCS knew who was the keeper of the vehicle, but not who was driving.  Did you out yourself as the driver?

 

If you read other cases you'll see that VCS will send you "threatening" letters, they'll then pretend the case has been passed to another party and the amount you owe has increased (Elms Legal in your case), loads of noise will be made about you ending up with terrible legal costs, your family members transported to Australia, you being hung, drawn & quartered, etc.  All hot air from paper tigers.

 

Get straight back onto the forum if they send you a Letter Before Action/Letter Before Claim though.  The letter from Elms Legal wasn't a LBA, was it?

 

The good news is that if VCS ever did try court they would almost certainly lose.  Caggers beat them in two court cases last week.  EMA and other airports are covered by bye-laws.  Let's say for a moment that you did do something naughty with your car.  Well you should be prosecuted in a magistrate's court and a fine paid to the state.  Private companies can't override bye-laws.  You don't owe them a bean.

 

Get reading up and familiarise yourself also with prohibition, the unlawful amounts VCS (or Excel, both companies are run by the same shyster Simple Simon) make up which we call the Unicorn Food Tax, POFA (although you've probably outed yourself as the driver), etc.

[FTMDave]

Can you please tell us exactly where you parked on the two occasions?  It's important because it looks as if VCS may have messed up re the location in at least in one of their letters.

 

Yes, you need to reply to Elms Legal but let's get to the bottom of the two locations first.

[FTMDave]

OK, good news, because VCS clearly state in one of their letters that you stopped in the fuel station and that you admitted it and they have CCTV evidence proving it.  All obvious garbage.

 

Yes, you need to reply to Elms Legal otherwise with two tickets VCS are likely to take you to court.  Look up "snotty letter" on the forum, tweak one to fit your case, and post up a draft here.  You need to show them you'd be big trouble if they did do court.

 

Chucking away the paperwork when you're in legal dispute is never a good idea.  The tickets would have had photographic evidence.  Personally I'd send a SAR to VCS to get your hands on the correspondence.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Post 51 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/420804-cel-rejected-my-appeal-final-notice-before-action/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-5091491

 

Post 10 here, indeed sent to VCS  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430939-vcs-anpr-pcn-paploc-berkley-centre-sheffield/?tab=comments#comment-5090750

 

Obviously these cases are a bit different to yours so you will have to tweak the letters.

[FTMDave]

I was thinking yesterday that the fact VCS have got the location wrong is your strongest card and the best way to ridicule their claim.  On the other hand, you shouldn't play your cards too soon in front of slimy Simple Simon.  Difficult one.  How about a tweak to make it more ambiguous ...

 

I write in response to your so-called “Letter Before Claim” received in relation to PCN Numbers VCSxxx & VCSxxxx for alleged parking breaches.

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous made-up sum of money for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with your client.

I have correspondence from your client Simple Simon where he gets the location of the "contravention" wrong and even pretends to have cctv footage to show me and the vehicle in a place neither have ever been.  This whole claim is a nonsense and I’m sure any Judge would agree.  No, I'm not sending you a copy of the letter, you can get off your backsides and do some due diligence for once.  As extra homework go and look up DDJ Harvey's judgement at Lewes on 5 February 2020 (claim number F0HM9E9Z).  He wasn't very happy with made-up sums like Simple Simon's £120 Unicorn Food Tax, was he?

Should your client wish to proceed with this farcical claim, I’ll be seeking recovery of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour, as well as damages for breach of GDPR.

 

 

These are just suggestions, hang on a mo and see what others think during the day.

[FTMDave]

Very good point dx.  You obviously know Simon's ways very well!  Revised version -

 

 

I write in response to your so-called “Letter Before Claim” received in relation to PCN Numbers VCSxxx & VCSxxxx for alleged parking breaches.

I am writing to confirm that I have no intention of paying this ridiculous made-up sum of money for allegedly breaking some imaginary contract with your client.

You know and I know and now you know that I know all the stuff about bye-laws, prohibition, etc.  This whole claim is a nonsense and I’m sure any judge would agree.  It was a big own goal by your client Simple Simon to include £120 Unicorn Food Tax.  Go and look up DDJ Harvey's judgement at Lewes on 5 February 2020 (claim number F0HM9E9Z).  He wasn't very happy with these invented amounts, was he?

Should your client wish to proceed with this farcical claim, I’ll be seeking recovery of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour, as well as damages for breach of GDPR.

[FTMDave]

Ignore the letter.

 

Yours in not the next move.  You've told them you're not paying and are prepared to do court.

 

It's up to them now to put up or shut up.

[FTMDave]

You paid one!

 

Can you get the money back through chargeback?

[FTMDave]

I understand where you're coming from.  Your defence is stating excellent reasons why Simon's case is pants.

 

But the point is to not let Simon know.  We have a case at the moment where a motorist drew up a seemingly-excellent defence with point after point showing how the PPC's case was rubbish - which gave their solicitor months & months to think up lies to rebut those points.

 

It's a game of chess with Simon.

 

If you simply state you didn't enter a contract with VCS that is enough.  It could have been due to the bye-laws.  Or prohibition.  Or not being the driver.  All bases are covered.  And Simon is in the dark.

 

Go for something more like post 15 in mishka muerte's thread underneath yours.

 

BTW, all the work you've put in about bye-laws, prohibition, etc., hasn't been wasted, all that will be great for your Witness Statement further down the line (if Simon doesn't give in first).

[FTMDave]

OK, so taking on Brassnecked's suggestion -

 

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of *******

 

2.  The Claimant was contracted by the landowner to provide parking management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the the road is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.  The proper Claimant is the landowner.

 

3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant.

 

4.  It is denied that the Defendant took part in a parking event.

 

5.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Defendant.

 

6. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

 

 

- that seems to cover all bases.

 

As dx says, there's no need to file it this early, but don't do it at the last minute either (we have someone at the moment in a mess because they waited till the last moment).  A few days before the deadline will do.

 

 

[FTMDave]

Simple Simon's tactics are ever changing, but are at least consistent in trying anything to get motorists to pay money they don't owe.

 

Ignore this rubbish.  See if he has the gonads to do court. 

[FTMDave]

11 hours ago, bolmgsr said:

Yes n180 sent on the 7th copy sent to ELMS but being as they are no longer involved will VCS say they have not received a copy 

 

Simple Simon gave Elms the E on 14 April. 

 

On 7 April Simon still had Elms as his representative so you have fulfilled what you had to do before the court. 

[FTMDave]

OK, so you need to prepare your WS.  There is a cracking VCS No Stopping WS in posts 83-84 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419312-vcs-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-in-restricted-zone-bristol-airport-claim-dismissed/page/4/#comments

 

Also read here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419686-vcs-anpr-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-double-dipping-st-marys-gate-retail-park-s1-4qz/page/3/#comments  from post 71 to the end of the thread.

[FTMDave]

Yes, it's best to have numbered paragraphs.

 

Points 4, 6, 14 & 15 are no use to you, but the rest can be used almost verbatim.  However, try to take it in and understand the legal arguments about bye-laws, prohibition, not a parking event, etc., as you will have to argue these points if Simon does take you all the way to court.

[FTMDave]

Well done.  However, the nature of the beast is now to nitpick and try to improve the WS.

 

See what the other regulars think too, then post up a revised version in a few days' time.

 

1.  In (4.1) I think you should be admitting as little as possible to doing what VCS found naughty.  I'm not saying to lie, just leave out bits the court doesn't need to know.  How about "4.1. On the evening of xxxxxxxx at approximately 00:22 , I arrived at East Midlands Airport to pick up my brother in law. I slowed down as I thought I could see him and then stopped on the main road to pick him up. I then drove out of the airport area along the same road I drove in on spending no more than approximately 3 minutes in the airport area.

 

Later I discovered that at 00:23:13 I was issued with a PCN ticket number VCSxxxxxxxx (exhibit 1) contravention reason: 46) stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited, East Midlands Airport Castle Donnington DE74 2SA. At 00:24:11 (58 seconds later) I was issued with a second PCN, ticket number VCS xxxxxxx. (exhibit 2) contravention reason: 104) stopping to pick up/ drop off in a restricted zone, The Fuel Station EMA Castle Donnington DE74 2SA.

 

However, at no time did I enter the fuel station as stated by the claimant, The photos shown in exhibit 2 do not show me in the fuel station. Therefore any reference to my location and signage within the fuel station are irrelevant.

 

2.  I'm not sure the bit about appeals is very relevant, but if you leave it in don't say the PCNs were increased to £160, the whole point is that the extra £60 is Unicorn Food Tax.

 

3.  The bit about asking for a breakdown of costs is irrelevant and needs to go.

 

4.  The next bits about it not being a parking event, driver/keeper, and the fuel station all need to be moved after (4) and to get their own paragraphs.

 

However, the meat of it is there.  Good work.

 

 

[FTMDave]

3 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

I am still trying to work out how a petrol station can survive if motorists aren't allowed to stop there.. 

 

[FTMDave]

The last two paragraphs especially sink Simon ....

[FTMDave]

That's great work - well done.

 

From a first quick glance there's nothing "wrong" there - however some of the paragraphs need moving round to make the legal arguments flow more clearly.  If no-one looks in this evening I'll do it tomorrow.

[FTMDave]

OK, I've tweaked things just a little bit (the odd typo, the odd word changed to make it flow better, etc).

 

However, I've moved the paragraphs around and given each section a heading to try to make your legal arguments clearer.  There may be more formal ways to phrase the headings, see what the other regulars think.

 

You'll have to change the exhibit numbers.

 

I've added a paragraph 16 in red saying Simon is claiming £50 legal costs yet he is representing himself (with an extra exhibit).

 

I think paragraph 6 needs to be split into two, RTA and bye-laws, and you need to lay it on thick about the bye-laws.  Indeed give the bye-laws their own section.

 

Apologies if I've knackered the lay-out!

 

However, see what the others think too.

WS version 3.pdf

[FTMDave]

@bolmgsrlookinforinfo's work can be added to para (7) or put in a new paragraph immediately after (7).  Split the bye-laws from para (6) and give them their own section, the bye-laws are one of your aces.

 

@brassneckedI've never seen a case where someone has sued to get the money back they'd paid on a PCN.  They fact they had agreed to pay would be problematic, although it could be argued that they had been conned by Simon pretending he had authority to manage the area.  Another area of attack could be GDPR, because here Simon has issued a PCN stating the OP was in a place they clearly weren't, even by Simon's photos, and VCS have told lie after lie about the petrol station while knowing all the while there was no basis to the PCN.  I suppose we'll have to see if the OP wins and the reasons the judge gives.

[FTMDave]

So Ambreen is back, at least she repeats herself less than Wally.

 

Superb, she makes the mistake about the petrol station too.  So at the end of your section "The Parking Charge Notice" add a new paragraph -

 

"In paragraphs 5 and 16 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, the Claimant states that I entered the fuel station.  This is simply untrue".

 

After your current para 19 add a new paragraph -

 

"The Claimant employs at least two paralegals, Ambreen Ashad as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's Witness Statement, and Mohammed Wali.  It is presumably the normal daily work of these employees to deal with legal matters".

 

Plus in any of the paperwork Simon sent you, is there mention of a Legal Department or a Litigation Department?

 

When you get time please post up a revised version of your WS with these little tweaks and all the great work lookinforinfo has done.

[FTMDave]

Reading the whole lot, I see Simon is not going after you for the usual generic no stopping at the airport, but specifically for the fuel station, indeed he includes the contract for "managing" parking specifically at the fuel station.  The vast majority of his photographs simply show the car, there is just one that shows the car near the fuel station but it's ambiguous as to whether you were in or out.  I think in your WS you should include the diagram where you showed where you actually stopped to make it clear to the judge.

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

That is great work.  Well done.

 

If you have a video, mention it, and on the day ask the judge for permission to play it.

 

If I'm being really, really, really pernickety the numbering could be improved, lookinforinfo's section in particular isn't numbered. 

 

You've left in the inverted commas in 13a & 19a. 

 

In 13 & 13a, 13a is pasted in the middle of 13.

 

In 16 you haven't assigned an exhibit number. 

 

You might want to rephrase "Second, VCS in order to gain access to DVLA data VCS have averred that they have complied in their CoP that they have complied with all the legalnecessities, which appears patently untrue".

 

7 is already covered in lookinforinfo's section.

 

These points are not really important though and certainly won't save Simon!