Jump to content


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


Recommended Posts

i think you are now at the stage of you await your N157 from your local court with case date and directions..

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

21 minutes ago, Hideyspidey said:

I'll start drafting a WS. Short and sweet or what's best approach?

You shouldn't send in 50 pages like Simon, but you do need to list all your arguments.  Have a look at the WS in post 118 here (typos are pointed out in post 119)  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/431422-vcselms-spy-car-2pcn-paploc-now-claimform-for-1-of-them-no-stopping-bp-station-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments 

This is an airport case so quite different from yours.  The part about "double recovery" can be copied nigh-on verbatim, most of the stuff before would have to go.  However, at least it gives you an idea.  Start by making a list of the sections and then flesh them out.  in no particular order

    Locus Standi - Simon is not the landowner

    Signage - no planning permission

    PCN - you never received one so had no right of appeal in breach of the CoP (I doubt you'll get anywhere as Simon has forged a PCN and you've thrown the Excel one away, but you might as well stick it in)

    Keeper liability - not established as Simon didn't send a PCN

    Supremacy of Contract - you were given permission by a resident to park

    Double recovery - the Unicorn Food Tax.

 

19 minutes ago, Hideyspidey said:

Also seen today that excel signed for there sar on 24th May

Well you know what to do if you decide to sue them.

  • 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

  • 2 weeks later...

you always attend small claims cases....where did you get the idea you didn't have too?

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

Its by attending you kill their pig for them, an" On The Paper's"  allows the fleecer to introduce downright lies that you can't challenge as you are not present to challenge them.

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

1 hour ago, Hideyspidey said:

small update, had a letter statig that had been moved to local court. Didnt know id have to attend, thought was small claims! Thanks for everyones help so far

I'm sorry to say that if this is your understanding at this stage in the game, then you really haven't done your reading and you are completely unprepared.

It may sound harsh but I think you need to sort this out as a matter of priority. You're the one with skin in the game. We do our best to give you advice but we are meant to be trying to empower you not spoonfeed you

Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes sense - twill undoubtedly be a zoom like video or telephone only, hearing, though it depends upon what court and where? 

 

sorry we mis-understood your query..

 

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

Can you please post up their WS when you receive it along wih all the other bumf that is included with it. Aslo how are yoi getting on with your WS. Please do not send it off without posting it here nor send it off too early to give VCS  a chance to add a supplementary WS.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When is it due in?  I've been very busy but will try to have a look at it ASAP.

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

Not yet. I've heard nothing since the letter saying it was moved to Lincoln.  No change on the website either. 

I was thinking..... once this is over could I then file a new claim against them for my time.  I know I had the option when doing my original reply to the court papers but I widnes want to be presumptuous. Now I'm annoyed at them for taking everyone's time up.  I've also got the option on the sar to excel that was ignored

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have looked at your WS and you make some very good points with just a couple of things that would be better moved around.

 

Under your Sequence of Events  at 4.4 you move on to relevant contracts which needs a sector on its own.

Also you should make the point that as the Privacy Note was obviously a Note To Driver, the PCN should not have been sent within 14 days but after 28 days.  This was  an underhand attempt  to thwart PoFA by bringing forward the liability for payment but means instead that they issued an  NTK  which cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

 

Then move on to Relevant Contract which you have  already quoted the PoFA guidelines.

include that there are two property companies included both of which therefore should have signed the deed. In addition the two property companies and VCS should have been  signed by directors and their names and position identified.

 

The deed also required that the signatures be witnessed and named and should not include any director that had already signed the deed. Furthermore neither property company appears to be the actual land owner.

 

Strict proof is needed as to who is the landowner and also the link that allows the other two companies to sign on behalf of the land owner. So VCS have no Locus Standi until the landowner is provided and the connection with the two property companies is proved. 

Under PoFA their needs to be a contract between the land owner and VCS which governs the behaviour of the motorist. Without that deed, there is no contract with the defendant.

 

As an aside you may have seen on the boundary map that Headford property described themselves as the "lawful Occupier". This does not necessarily mean that they are the land owners they can be tenants just as easily.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/lawful-occupier I would be inclined to take that definition with you but not include it in your list of documents.

 

You have already covered points 5 and 6 so there is no need to repeat. And no need to include Bye laws since there are none.

 

7]  You can delete all of this as you did that now on 4.6 or 4.7 and there is no need to include Excel. They have no signage in the car park and the Privacy Notice doubles up as a notice from excel and vcs but you will notice that only vcs is ticked on the privacy notice. And remove 7.1 as well.

 

8] you do not know that the first PCN came from excel. I suspect that the mixup on the Privacy Notice caused you to think that and as you threw away that PCN  you are on a sticky wicket accusing them.

 

On 4.6 you can include that VCS do not have planning permission for their signage and cctv cameras which is a legal requirement under Town and Country {advertisements] Regulations 2007. Without that permission they do not have the right to erect signs nor install cameras which puts them in breach of their COP where you can include Lord Neuberger's thoughts on the right to use the DVLA when they are not compliant even with their COP never mind the Law.

 

When their WS arrives please post it up so that we can see where they have gone wrong and correct it so the Judge is not misdirected.

 

By the way, I have seen the VCS contract but not the original PCN. If you have it could you please post it up as there may be other ways in which it does not comply with PoFA.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

LFI,

 

the OP is adamant that the original PCN was from Excel, and this is borne out by Simon's solicitors sending all the documentation after being SAR'd ... bar the PCN.

 

The OP can't post up the original PCN because it was thrown away.

 

However, I agree with you that the OP is on a very sticky wicket here.  The judge decides on the balance of probabilities.  Is it more probable that Simon sent the PCN from the wrong company and then later on forged a PCN from the right company?  Or that all along the PCN was from VCS?  Given the OP has thrown the PCN away and cannot show Excel were involved, the judge will decide for Simon.  IMO the point about Excel could stay but should be a minor point reduced to a single paragraph which points out that the solicitors were unable to produce a PCN.

  • 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

Your WS is not too long - Simon's will be about 50 pages!

 

I agree with LFI that you have excellent points in there.

 

Please take into account what LFI has written and post up a revised version when you can.

 

What is wrong with the WS is that you jump from one argument to another.  Try to divide it into sections.  In no particular order -

   - no locus standi

   - no keeper liability

   - no PCN

   - rubbish signage

   - planning permission

   - prohibition

   - Supremacy of Contract

   - Unicorn Food Tax.

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

All points taken on board, thank you. I will revise and re-post. So they will do about 50 pages, that is really sad. Have they got nothing better to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'd wait for Simon's, otherwise he will dissect yours and construct misleading and often plain wrong stuff to rebut it.

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

If VCS send their WS to you before yours needs filing it gives you an advantage.  Obviously they send you their WS full of legal examples which appear to strengthen their case and put you off turning up in Court. Some parking companies send a WS with over 30 pages which is hoped will frighten the motorist but it is a double edged sword.

 

Once you know the lies and misdirection used by these crooks [yes they do lie and misdirect] you can point them out in your WS which makes it far more likely that it is they who do not turn up in Court. And of course if they do turn up, the greater the chance of you winning if you were able to refute many of their often outlandish claims and suggestions.

 

On another note, their no. 6 Court Doc. is perhaps to remind VCS to include the contract and where it was signed though I am unsure how the Court could prove that it wasn't signed where stated.

 

As far as photos are concerned there is no reason for them to be blurred unless they are trying to cover the fact that the vehicle was not breaching the terms there and so they blur the photos to cover their tactics. Also that they use A4 paper as the Courts have finally caught on the crooks increasing font sizes on their photos to show that they comply with required size notice  when they don't actually comply.

 

The last two points are getting VCS in this case to explain what the breach was since they don't always detail it nor do they breakdown how they arrived at their final figure.  This is a good thing for the motorist and if they don't do it that can be something else  you can use against them when you see their WS.

 

This is going back a few posts now but if you think that the NTK was from Excel rather than just seeing their name on the privacy notice. You should contact the solicitors pointing out that the windscreen notice and the NTK are missing and so they have not complied with the SAR stipulations. Give them 14 days or a complaint will go to the ICO.

 

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no solicitor anymore.  They were using elms but they informed me that is not the case anymore. 

I've received a letter today,  another offer but I'm not happy with it. It reads like they are adding another £220 for a local solicitor to attend ( a A zoom hearing)  on their behalf. That is not fair.  

I've attached 

Screenshot_20210818-170938_Chrome-converted 1.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the second Cagger to get this letter in the last few days.  Don't worry about it.  Legal costs are capped at £50.  They're just trying to scare you.

 

In fact the other Cagger turned the tables on Simon and included the letter in their WS to show the judge that VCS are demanding costs they aren't entitled to.  Have a look at the WS in post 110 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#comments  You can copy verbatim from paras 17 to 26 when you prepare your WS because Simon has done exactly the same thing with you.

 

  • Like 2
  • 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

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...