VCS/ELMS PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - residential - Headford Mews, Sheffield, S3 7XL

[lookinforinfo]

They could still not attend on the day of course hoping that you might not either. It does seem unfair that they would get a walkover if neither of you turned up.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Don't forget that they cannot pursue you as the keeper because their PCN was non compliant. So they need strict proof that you were the driver. 

The Office of Fair Trading may be defunct now but the Financial Conduct authority have adopted their ideas on Debt Guidance including this-

Charging for debt recovery

 

3.10 Charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly. 3.11 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

a. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay recovery charges when this is not the case

b. claiming recovery costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual provision to be able to do so

 For example, where there is no provision in the credit agreement that expressly allows for such charges to be levied.

 

So the charges are unfair from the point of view that the actual amount claimed is not on their signs and £60 or £70 is totally  out of proportion to their £100 charge.  And it was the debt recovery sum you were querying. Bear in mind that many debt collectors do not charge the parking company for debt collection because they get the motorist to pay if they are successful. However even they are not successful, parking companies still seem to think they can charge the motorist. And of course you have primacy of contract.

 

Good Luck. Please do not worry -you have a strong case. Don't forget to ask for your expenses.

Edited November 20, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[Hideyspidey]

I'm all ready for them thanks to everyone here.  Will I hear the outcome on the day?

[dx100uk]

of course

[Hideyspidey]

Quick query. I think I was supposed to be contacted by midday today with a link for tomorrow hearing if case going ahead.   But heard nothing.  I've sent the court an email.  Any ideas?

[FTMDave]

If the court is still open, ring them.

 

I've got it in my head they close at 4pm though.

Edited November 23, 2021 by FTMDave
Typo

[dx100uk]

On 16/08/2021 at 08:17, Hideyspidey said:

Finally, i have my hearing date. 24th november by video link in small claims court. It says the claimant must pay the fee before 27th october. Do i need to get my WS out asap so he can see it and hopefully wthdraw?

I have attached a page from the letter and i am confused by number 6. As i understand siple simon has to supply all those documentd as well as a a WS.

6and7courtdocaug21.pdf 323.36 kB · 13 downloads

all details of what should happen re calls etc should be in page 1 of this doc that you've not posted up 

[Hideyspidey]

So.... judge gone into consideration.  They've torn me to pieces. Was going down the consumer credit act but now not as I am trade.  But then says supremacy of contract is irrelevant because a leaseholder doesn't own the parking space.  They've hammered me on s43 companies act.  They say pcn even though issued incorrectly is irrelevant because I admitted I was owner. The excel pcnn is another issue for another day! They've rebuffed all past persuasive cases . The only thing the judge listened to from me was that the privacy notice was left by an employee during lockdown and they are not essential.  I'm expecting the original 100 pound fine.  

He said the only way he would strike it out is if it is unfair. And he says he has no legal reason to see why it is unfair.  

What planet are these people on? 

[lookinforinfo]

The poor dears keep trotting out PE v Beavis  as if it were a magic potion that wins all their cases. As Headford Mews is a residential car park with permits the Beavis case does not apply. In any event the contract by the owners of the apartments and the landowner far outweighs the piddling contract from VCS.

 

Incidentally, did you receive a further page of their contract with Headford mews as the contract refers to point number 3.1 in the contract yet the portion you showed did not have any part of that contract numbered.

 

I think I made the point before but you if the Court is going to rely on the VCS contract then the signatories for Headford Mews must be unredacted to prove the contract was signed by at least one director of the company  and either a witness i or another director of the company beneath which is their hand printed name for identification. there should also be a link from Headford mews to Fairways property management showing that they have permission to sign on behalf of Fairways.

Really the VCS contract should not be taken into consideration as the important contract is the one with the tenant of the flat you were visiting and that is the point you should get across to the Judge since that was the initial contract and it cannot be overruled by the VCS one regardless of how much VCS would like that to happen. They are total crooks.

 

 

if their solicitor tries to bluff that their contract is relevant then hit back with VCS are well known for pursuing motorists when they have no contract to do so. Such as at airports which are covered by statutory was and byelaws and therefore not relevant land. They lose time and again in Court. They even had to pay out £1000 in costs and damages to one disabled motorist that they had pursued for over two years after losing yet another case this month.

 

 

 

[Hideyspidey]

Update:

Lost

The Judge said

 

• They have locus standi because contract is ok because it is actually a license and been in force since july 2018 and not challemged. so they mau only occupy a possessory tiltle but the license gives them locus standi
• Not necessary for claimants toprove they entered into a contract beacuse it a license
• Plenty of signs and despite it beinf the shortest day of the year and dark, it was not dark enough. I saw there was signs and should have made an attmept to read the small print so therefore signs are clear
• Should have parked away from property and walked despite it being unfair and dark and carrying a ladder
• OK for someone to give me a ticket during lockdown when shouldnt have been working because contract still existsed during lock down
• Property owner does not have supremacy of cotract since a new contract was signed between the managing agents and vcs
• NO breaches of codes of practice because it was a license
• Schedule 4 para 9 of PoFA has changed and must now be served within 14 days
• £100 is reasonable and not double recovery
• No keeper liability now irreleveant 
• CRA2015 does not apply because i was working there in my role
• Things maybe unfair or appear unfair but he finds them fair ( judges exact words)

He ignored my unfair terms of how i could expect to know that i needed to get a permit in advance, of how the witness statement never addressed this etc. He said that my employers should have found a way to find out, i said that it was an emergency appt and i had driven from lincoln to sheffield that afternoon.

 

So i lost my rag after that when he asked me how i wanted  to pay , I asked if they wanted blood and whether i should pay the mortgage or feed the kids. 

On a plus note he waived the interest of £11.82

 

We have also decided now that we will not take any work at flats that have residential parking ( emergency or not) and incorporate this into our bookings unless a valid parking permit is provided in advance.

 

Thanks everyone for your help though, i was looking forward to it this morning and felt very confident. But its just one of those days

 

 

[honeybee13]

That's a shame, it seems you were unlucky today. How much did you end up paying?

 

HB

[dx100uk]

sounds like judge lottery to me and no-one can counter that.

 

probably play golf together.

 

dx

 

[Hideyspidey]

Yep.  270 quid!! Oh well

He was actually a ddj so only learning apparently,  but pompous and made me feel like in headmasters office when i was 10. Really horrible 

[FTMDave]

Really sorry to hear about this outcome.  Your WS was superb.  It seems like the judge was out to get you.

[lookinforinfo]

The judge was wrong in law.

 

primacy of contract means that there is a contract between the landowner/managing agent and the tenant. That does not allow VCS to overrule the lease agreement of the tenant. Davey v UKPC proved that. That was a case back in 2012 or 2013 listed on CAG where the tenant took UKPC Court for trespass and won.

 

Of course that would depend on the lease that your tenant had with the land owner but I doubt it was produced in Court. Normally a Judge would know that but there are always some who were off on the day that supremacy of contract was taught.

 

I did suggest some time ago  that you talked with your tenant and from there you may have obtained a copy of their lease. Not withstanding that , supremacy of lease should have been the clincher anyway. 

 

Contract ? License ? what is he on about.

The signed document said it was a contract.

There needs to be a contract with PoFA for VCS to be able to pursue motorists who breach the contract .

 

If it were me I would appeal against the ruling but I would first get a sight of the tenant's lease.

Edited November 25, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

All that being said I am very sorry you lost what I thought was a strong case. Interestingly Jazzhands  has a case going though court at the moment and at post 77 you will see that the Judge said that the case will probably rest on the supremacy of contract.

Jazzhands obviously has a more clued up Judge than you had. 

[FTMDave]

Take a few days to calm down after this experience with the pompous git.

 

Then have a think about the fact that Excel never replied to your SAR.  There's no defence to that.  You could get revenge by suing them for a few quid.

[Hideyspidey]

That's what i thought.  I will get revenge some point.  

The judge was horrible. Their solicitor even asked if I was OK and said not to charge the extra solicitor costs

[Hideyspidey]

The judge said that he will only go on what he thinks is fair and right.  They won every one of their arguments it was as though the judge wanted them to win.  Hardly got a chance to speak. The judge is a deputy, meaning not necessarily legally trained,  just had to sit with magistrate's for at least 5 years.  

He went on about consumer rights for ages and said I had no proof I was working. Then he said if I was working there then he can't use the fairness of consumer rights.  

Can't believe the bloke thought 100 quid was reasonable and that on the darkest shortest day of the year said it wasn't dark enough. Apparently if you see there is a sign you have to assume that the small writing you can't see or read means business.

How do I appeal?

 

[brassnecked]

If Andyorch looks in he can advise on that part, like LFI i would have thought the Supremacy of Contract would be a clincher, but Judge Lottery reared its head

[AndyOrch]

I wouldn't appeal...unless you have plenty of spare time and deep pockets. Pay it put it behind you move on.