Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  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.  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.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court 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. 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. 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. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  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. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore 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.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract 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.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. 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 is 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 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. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage 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. 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. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   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. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. 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? 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.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. 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. 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.  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.   Conclusions:   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 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. 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 entire fallacious claim. 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.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Injury Claim Against Local Council Through Zurich - Scotland


Recommended Posts

My mum is making an insurance claim through Zurich for an injury to her knee she sustained last year in a local cemetery.

 

She lost her footing on a pot hole and came down and cut her knee and ended up in hospital.

 

She is currently awaiting results from an X-ray to her knees and has experienced difficult walking, numbness and pain ever since.

 

She just received a letter from them (attached) so I thought I would come on here and ask for some advice, if anyone has any?

 

We are going to send photos later and try to answer all the questions they are asking. It sounds like standard insurance company stuff, trying to get out of paying. The council is clearly at fault here and should have maintained the pathways since it's a public space and frequented by old people who aren't as steady on their feet.

 

The claim is being made in Scotland.

mum claim pdf.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem in sending them the information they are asking for. I hope you took pictures of the pothole et cetera in the cemetery.

It will be interesting to go back there now and see if it has been repaired. If there has been repaired then that would suggest that the council has since realised that the work needed to be done.

I would send an SAR to the council. I would also send an FOIA request to the council asking them for all copies of any discussions, correspondence, assessments, reports, notes, memoranda relating to the conditions or works at the cemetery from – say, six months prior to the incident until now.

See what that turns up.

Also you need to make sure that you have got all copies of medical reports and go and see the GP for up-to-date assessments. Make full notes of all difficulties being suffered, pain, inconvenience – everything the lot.

Also, get a report from someone authoritative which makes it clear that she is unable to do ballet or to take part in the next Olympics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason for it to take years if you want to push it forward.

Ultimately when you have got all your information together, if it all looks good then you could consider simply suing the council. That will put pressure on everybody to get a move on.

It might almost be better getting all the information from the council before you respond to the request from the insurance company. You will be in a more powerful position if you are fully informed. Good preparation as was the key to these things.

A particular difficulty will be understanding what her injuries are worth.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so first thing is to get the SARS request into the council and then wait for the results to come from the hospital. Is there a standard letter format for that, or do I just write and ask them? Probably a page on their website for doing this I expect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

click sar

 

dx

  • Like 1

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

7 hours ago, BankFodder said:

I would send an SAR to the council. I would also send an FOIA request to the council asking them for all copies of any discussions, correspondence, assessments, reports, notes, memoranda relating to the conditions or works at the cemetery from – say, six months prior to the incident until now.

 

What should I send the SAR for? 

 

And as for the FOIA request do I just sent a letter. Is there a standard form I can use for that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use our subject access request template.

 

For the FOIA request write a letter and refer to the areas which I have indicated above

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Writing a letter now. I'm not sure what the purpose of the SAR is, but I trust your advice anyway. Do I just copy and paste the SAR letter as it is (obviously changed the addresses etc.)?

 

Does this sound OK?

Freedom Of Information Request
 

In relation to my insurance claim for injury sustained while visiting the cemetery grounds at XXXXX on XX-XX-XX (ref. No. XXXXXXXX) I hereby write to you to request the following information, as per my legal entitlement within the Freedom Of Information Act 2000: 

Please provide me with all copies of any discussions, correspondence, assessments, reports, notes or memoranda relating to the conditions of, or works planned or undertaken within the cemetery grounds at XXXXX from the XX-XX-XX until the present date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just composing the SAR letter - more or less word for word. It seems really strongly worded and confrontational? What is the purpose of this - to send a signal to the council that we're serious and know a bit about the law so they cave in and pay out? 

 

Also, what period should I ask for all this for - the past year since my mum sustained the injury?

 

9 hours ago, whiteadder said:

I'm just composing the SAR letter - more or less word for word. It seems really strongly worded and confrontational? What is the purpose of this - to send a signal to the council that we're serious and know a bit about the law so they cave in and pay out? 

 

Also, what period should I ask for all this for - the past year since my mum sustained the injury?

OK I edited the letter to cover the period of injury and referenced to the compensation claim. Also deleted the last two paragraphs, unless anyone thinks there is a specific reason why I should include legal threats at the end? I think the letter is strongly worded enough as it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a legal right with serious legal repercussions if they fail to comply

lEAve those as is imho

  • Like 1

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

9 hours ago, whiteadder said:

OK I edited the letter to cover the period of injury and referenced to the compensation claim. Also deleted the last two paragraphs, unless anyone thinks there is a specific reason why I should include legal threats at the end? I think the letter is strongly worded enough as it is.

 

You should not reference any specific incident because you should not put the target of your SAR on enquiry and also you should do nothing to limit the scope of your disclosure request.

In terms of the tone of it, if it is not to your taste then miss that part out but the most important thing is to send them a statutory request expressed as broadly as possible without giving any particular clues as to what it's about

9 hours ago, whiteadder said:

Does this sound OK?

Freedom Of Information Request
 

In relation to my insurance claim for injury sustained while visiting the cemetery grounds at XXXXX on XX-XX-XX (ref. No. XXXXXXXX) I hereby write to you to request the following information, as per my legal entitlement within the Freedom Of Information Act 2000: 

Please provide me with all copies of any discussions, correspondence, assessments, reports, notes or memoranda relating to the conditions of, or works planned or undertaken within the cemetery grounds at XXXXX from the XX-XX-XX until the present date.

No. For the reasons given above

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I should just draft up the SAR more or less as it is, and request personal data for the past 75 years then?

 

I'm not entirely sure why I should do this, and it seems a bit confrontational. Can anyone explain to me what the purpose of this is?

 

I get the reason behind the FOIA request, but not sure what the SAR is for..

Link to post
Share on other sites

an sar is a legal request to supply all YOUR data a company holds

you don't need to specify any 'details'.

 

just send it as is.

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

A Subject Access Request (SAR) is very simple all you need to do is use this simple phrase 'ALL DATA' that covers whatever format they hold your Data in whether it be telephone recordings, emails, writing etc.

 

They then have 30 Calendar Days to comply and that time limit only starts once they have acknowledged receipt of your SAR Request and do not play at asking you to prove your ID which can increase said time limit.

 

Have you actually asked them to provide you with a copy of there Public Liability Insurance? (if not ask them to provide a copy)

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

No we haven't asked them for Public Liability Insurance, and both letters for SAR and FOI are written up and ready to send today. I suppose this could be done by email.

 

So I told her to send the letters by recorded delivery, and she sent them normal post. So now there will be no record and the council can just turn round and say they didn't receive them.

 

Should I send email copies too now then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So my Mum has received a reply about the FOI regarding work carried out in the cemetery and it's just a spreadsheet of details about all the gravestones. Absolutely nothing about the state of the paths.

 

As for the SAR request she received a letter on the 2nd August asking her to provide a form of identification "in order to make (her) request valid" and she ignored it, which doesn't help I suppose! She didn't read the full letter.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no sar reply?

 

 

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

urm.. that was an old msg... did she send ctax copy  asadvised in the sar link posts?

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

31 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

urm.. that was an old msg... did she send ctax copy  asadvised in the sar link posts?

 

No she didn't, but that's probably my fault. I'll get her to send a copy this week.

 

I still don't understand why a SAR. What about the FOI?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Injury Claim Against Local Council Through Zurich - Scotland

Can someone please just explain to me why I'm getting my mum to request an SAR? What relevance does this have to her insurance claim?

 

I'm following your advice but I don't know why.

Edited by whiteadder
Link to post
Share on other sites

its free and it can't hurt

you never know what information it might throw up.

remember this is data concerning her, it might well be this has already been discussed by them in some form.

 

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

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...