Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

Is this enough or do I need to include anything about bylaws, POFA etc


I dispute the fact from the claimant that I entered the fuel station. The photos and CCTV evidence they have are inconclusive and does not show my vehicle in the fuel station boundary as claimed by them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

of all people i would never be tipping simple simon off about any evidence that proves your case..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any better ?
 

I dispute the fact that I entered the fuel station and therefore any mention of signage within the fuel station is irrelevant.

There is no liability in this matter as East Midlands Airport land is covered by its own bylaws and therefore not subject to POFA 2012

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bolmgsr said:

Any better ?
 

I dispute the fact that I entered the fuel station and therefore any mention of signage within the fuel station is irrelevant.

There is no liability in this matter as East Midlands Airport land is covered by its own bylaws and therefore not subject to POFA 2012

 

and that s not telling simon whats wrong?

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd time lucky 🤞

 

There is no liability in this matter as East Midlands Airport land is covered by its own bylaws and therefore not subject to POFA 2012.

Signs stating no stopping is not an offer of a contract, but a prohibition and no contract can ever be formed or exists for prohibitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your continued support, Is this more suitable
 

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

 

2.  The Claimant was not contracted by the landowner to provide prohibition 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. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with 2 and 3, and maybe  was not a parking incident, as I was not parked or stopped  in contravention of any rule.

Just let the others have a quick look, but with Simple Simon, Less is always More at this point

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't file early.

Not due till 9/4

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi, just filling in my defence on MCOL at the end it’s asks if I want to make a counter claim and how much would I be claiming for, any advice would be welcome.

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

No do not counterclaim, that can open up a whole world of pain.  And if you lose the costs will be shocking.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

good now dont forget to get reading up upon what is next , whats down the timeline during the court process and how to deal with it.

cause if you'd done that, you wouldn't have asked the counterclaim question..  use our search top right in the red banner, Claimform PCN.

the more you READ the stronger we become.

 

dx

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean an n180?

from the fleecers or a blank one from the court?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the fleecers or a blank one from the court?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the blank one from the court directions questionnaire that I need to fill in and send back to the county court business centre it also says I should serve copies on all other parties

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats very quick then.

i was just checking it was not the fleecers pushing theirs early as they do to try and pressure and intimidate a defendant..

 

LEGAL : N180 Directions Questionnaire (Small Claims Track) **Correct at Sept 2016** - Court Procedure and General Guidance - Consumer Action Group

 

dont put your phone/sig/email on the copy to elms.

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a letter this morning (2 in fact both the same) from VCS saying they are no longer being represented by ELMS and they are representing themselves and are offering me a reduced fee of £175 to settle.Is this their last attempt to get money out of me before it goes to court. Are you familiar with these tactics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you read a few VCS threads here 

you'll understand Simple simon has employed just about every solicitors there is since he started his campaign against people that use ports and airports, most dump him eventually as his legal claims are bogus, he can't enforce byelaws.

 

did you send you N180?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...