Jump to content


VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster


Recommended Posts

Yes, this is one of their tricks.  Legal costs are capped at £50, so they're just trying it on.

 

We've seen similar letters signed by Jake Burgess in the past.  Could you redact & post the letter up?  It's always good to keep track of whatever tricks Simon is trying to pull. 

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

small claims costs are limited which is why it's called small claims. they can't add anything more than what they stated on the original claimform poc.

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

so this sort of underlines what we know and have seen happen in numerous recent court claims from simple simon in recents months.

 

he gets firms like elms legal etc to do his initial dirty work then they get fed up with earning nowt and they dump him and refuse to attend, si now he is dumping these speculative claims and wild claims in the locum solicitors, which won't have a clue and will lose him most cases

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

  • 1 month later...

one mass PDF please

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

Read upload use pdfreducer website

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

all good

can you put up pages 22 - 32 up as one file as close to 4.8 as you can 

we need unblurred text of the signs.

 

points worthy of note

 

this is peel investments site

you need to search here on peel, there are if my memory serves me, some very good wins here.

 

the contract is 2015...no indication the annual fee has been paid to date.

 

the site IS govn'd by byelaws and these trump/negate the VCS contract.

 

if again i remember correctly, the no stopping signs are from the AIRPORT under the BYELAWs  not VCS. they cannot enforce that as its not a parking matter.

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

Good grief, ye Gods, I'll read this tripe next time I can't get off to kip, how many times does Wally have to say "there's loads of signs guv"?!!

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

Quickly, you've left your full name showing on Simon's LBC.  The car reg is showing in point 52 of Wally's WS.  You might want to redact these.

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

You need to start building your own WS.  I suggest as a base to build on the WS in post 110 here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments 

 

The case is very similar to yours - no stopping, airport, VCS.

 

 

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

6 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Quickly, you've left your full name showing on Simon's LBC.  The car reg is showing in point 52 of Wally's WS.  You might want to redact these.

thank you. I don't seem to have any access to deleting the unredacted doc though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the images with better resolution

 

 

These are the images being used to prove that the signage was clearly displayed when my vehicle was there on the night in question. Their witness statement point 25 claims that even 4 seconds was judged a violation in a previous case when someone stopped to clear their engine management light.

images with signage2.pdf

2 hours ago, FTMDave said:

You need to start building your own WS.  I suggest as a base to build on the WS in post 110 here https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments 

 

The case is very similar to yours - no stopping, airport, VCS.

 

 

thank you. I am onto it.

images with signage.pdf

Edited by dx100uk
images rotated
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had a chance to have a good look at their WS but it appears to me that they may not have used the right reason for issuing the PCN under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. 


The law does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway  VCS have been very sly by either selectively avoiding including the signage relating to when cars can park on bus stops or they have deliberately photoshopped them.

 

Judging by the No Stopping signs this is a clearway in which the offence should be "Stopped where prohibited-on a red route or a clearway}"  You should put them to strict proof on which TSRGD reg. they are pursuing you with,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have had time to look at their WS and I cannot for the life of me understand why Guy Burgess could say that they had a strong case.

 

For a start the bus stand is not on relevant land. This knocks their case out of the window for starters. The road is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The signs around the bus stop that say NO Stopping do not mention VCS or Peel Investments  [the alleged land owners]. The signage should identify the creditor-it doesn't -a breach of the CoP. The signage around the bus stop is prohibitive so incapable of forming a contract.

 

I note that they mention a couple of occasions where they have won such cases but none were on airports on land that is not relevant and may well be covered by Bye Laws which over rule any pathetic signs by VCS whose declared service is to provide cost effective parking solutions.

 

So why they are trying to do no stopping on bus stops rather than car parks is beyond me-and by the look of it beyond VCS too. They spend so much time trying to pretend there is a contract and it is not even on relevant land.

 

And the contract is a joke. It's written as a Witness Statement! Under the Companies Act it should be a document signed by directors of both companies and then witnessed by two independent people. It certainly cannot be signed by a manager from Peel and no one from VCS. So there is no contract. In any event the "contract" does not mention that VCS are able to pursue motorists to court.

 

As a rough rule of thumb, the longer their WS, the poorer their case is. Here they use all kinds of irrelevant cases to back their rubbish. They quote the Beavis case which was about parking in a car park while your case is about stopping, not parking, in a bus stop on a road covered by the RTA.

 

Talk about clutching at straws.

 

 

 

Edited by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue
Link to post
Share on other sites

To carry on from the above post it may be helpful to go through their WS using their numbers.

 

9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land.

First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that

a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.

b] the signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the No Stopping signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and the creditor be identified. 

 

10]There is no mention of £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian.

 

11] no matter how often VCS say it, it is NOT a contractual clause

 

22]" the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site". No it hasn't. This is a road leading to the airport.

 

All sorts of people are going to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS wth any sort of permissions. The land owners yes, but not VCS . There can be no sort of analogy between a car park and a major thoroughfare where VCS have no place as it is not relevant land.

 

23] there can be no contract as there is no offer only a prohibition. And it is not relevant land no matter how Mr Walli attempts to prove otherwise.

 

25] VCS may have won a few times but none quoted was on an airport covered by the RTA and its own Byelaws. They also have lost more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.

 

26] First one has to consider if there is a contract. Is it relevant land? No. Does a valid contract exist betweer VCS and Peel? NO. 

 

27] the signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible 

 

29] already stated that a WS between VCS and peel is not a valid document

 

31] it will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant no matter who was driving.

 

32] there is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employedd relationship. VCS are muddying the waters because they have no way of transferring the driver's liability to the keeper

 

33] this a red herring. There is no list of highways at all  on the Highways act 1980 so this is a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws.

 

34] there ican be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. Totally fatuous analogy. 

 

35] yes the landowners can bring in their own terms but what the cannot do is overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act.

 

39] surely the paralegal cannot be that ignorant of PoFA. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and so the specious argument about FGW is rubbish

 

36] what on earth is he talking about with Permits. There is no mention of permits on the signage and even if there were  would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on No Stopping roads?

 

There are enough examples on CAG to counter act their idiocy on continuing charging the extra £60

 

46] VCS had NO reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details.

No valid  contract with the landowners

  • No stopping is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract
  • the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction
  • the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for a motorist to be able to read it 
  • the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP so not valid
  • the WS contract does not appear to authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court

 

Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.

 

48] what is this guy on? You weren't in a car park you were on a bus stop

 

59] this case is totally without merit. I am not surprised that the paralegal will not be turning up. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. Could have been said in at least half the time without the repetition and trying to make a case where none was there.

 

One particularly bad example of misdirection was in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.

 

Edited by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! It appears I have so much more to fight back with than I even imagined. I will now try to put it together in a document that I will use in my defence. I think I will probably find time on Sunday evening for this. Thanks again!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Witness statement. You already filed your defence

 

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

I have reproduced some of your statements verbartim and reworded some and added a few bits here and there with some comments from my understanding. I wonder what you think of this now and if it is essential to go through each of the points and rebut all of them one after another?

 

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway.

What specific clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does the claimant allege has been violated by the defendant?

 

The signage around the bus stop is prohibitive and as such is incapable of forming a contract.

The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. The signage should identify the creditor-it doesn't -a breach of the CoP.  

Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself.

 

The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. None of those cited cases were on airport land. Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. 

 

Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void. 

 

The Beavis case referred to by the claimant was about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act.

 

The defendant would like to point out that

9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land.

First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that

a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.

b] the signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the No Stopping signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. 

 

10]There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian.

 

11] Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.

 

22] Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act. 

 

All classes of people go to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.

 

23] The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it.

 

25] The cases which VCS cites to have won were not on any airport roads that are covered by the RTA which has its own Byelaws. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.

 

26] The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract and the land is not relevant. Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel.

 

27] The signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone, but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible. 

 

29] As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document.

 

31] It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving.

 

32] There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper.

 

33] A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist at all. The defendant brings the attention of the court to note that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws.

 

34] There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case. 

 

35] While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act.

 

36] There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads?

 

39] If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion.

 

43] As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.

 

46] VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details.

VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners.

  • “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract

  • the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction

  • the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it 

  • the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid

  • the WS contract does not appear to authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court

 

Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.

 

48] The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the fallacious claim.

 

59] Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all.

One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the points you've made are excellent.

 

The only problem is you jump from one legal argument to another.  Judges like clarity.

 

Have a look at the WS in post 110 on this thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments  I think the way Alaska101 has grouped the arguments together with sub-headings.  It's an airport no stopping case like your can use huge chunks.  The part about the Unicorn Food Tax at the end is the same in all VCS cases so you can quote the whole section verbatim.

 

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...