Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you never deferred to erudio. the debt is statute barred  any deferment to slc would have at the latest been 2012, the date of your last written and signed ack of the debt.   there are 10's of like backdoor erudio threads here already dx  
    • My almost ready witness statement ...    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.   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.   Conclusion: 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.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Parking Eye ANPR Teanlowe - Booths Poulton Le Fylde


Recommended Posts

My wife has just received Parking Charge Notice from those lovely scumbags people at Parking Eye.

The car park is a free to use car park with a 3 hour limit. She managed to stay for 3 hours and 11 minutes.

 

1 Date of the infringement
31/07/2021
 
 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
04/08/2021
 
3 Date received
09/08/2021
 
4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]
Yes
 
5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?
Yes
 
6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]
No
 
Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up
N/A
 
7 Who is the parking company?
Parking Eye
 
8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]
Teanlowe – Booths, Poulton Le Fylde
 
For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under.
BPA
 

 

Parking eye 001.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

HA ha ha ha. ELEVEN whole minutes!! Good luck Parking Lie you're on a hiding to nowhere with this one.

 

If this is local to you, can you get any photos of the entrance and all of the signage they have littered about the place.

 

Is it a retail park with multiple stores on?

 

Where did your OH shop?

 

If it was one particular store then she should contact them and demand they cancel the invoice and just how disgusting it is how they treat their customers.

 

Also pop onto the LA website and see if PE have any planning permission for the signs and cameras.

 

 

  • Like 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The site is a multiple store site that is used for all the shops in the surrounding area with Booths in control of the car park ( It was a council controlled site until the Booths store was built and the car park revamped.)

Tomorrow's job is to get photo's of all the signage.

Booths have planning permission for the cameras and signs not Parking Lies, I don't know if that makes any difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could make a difference, let's see what the experts think. Good research on your part. :)

 

I agree with Bazooka Boo, the grace period is usually at least 10 minutes, so that could help you.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so the Booths angle is a no no.

 

Obviously don't pay, they're essentially after her for overstaying one minute!!!

 

I agree with Bazooka Boo about the signage.  That shown on Google Earth is appalling and clearly insufficient, but dates back to 2019.  It would be good to see what signs they have up now.

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

Surprisingly the other photos are half decent for once and actually get to the point about the restrictions and the charge.

 

Doesn't change that she only overstayed by a minute though!

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

Does the fact that the signs refer to using ticket machines ( of which there are none ) to make payment and or terminals to enter your resignation number ( of which there are also none ) still make the terms and conditions binding or relevant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The signs that you posted did not mention payment at all. Just that motorists had 3 hours free parking and then had to leave. Nor was there any mention of entering the registration number.  As the car park is only an invitation to treat in any case, there is no need to for you to be concerned about that, but it is useful to use against them in your WS should it come to that.

This should help to explain-

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-invitation-to-treat-contract-law-essay.php

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I missed PE's small print where they whittle on about inputting registration numbers, making payment and pay machines.

 

Your OH had the right to be there for three hours plus the 10-minute grace period.

 

Yes, she could easily have wasted extra time due to their confusing signage and wandered around looking for payment machines which didn't exist.

 

It should also be self-evident that if 10 minutes is an accepted grace period in normal times, then it should be longer in times of a global pandemic when social distancing means everyone takes longer to do their shopping, to enter a restaurant and respect its hygiene provisions, etc.

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

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

yep.

 

post it up here 1st please

 

you have 30days from the date of their paploc.

 

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

yep snotty letter time 

post your snotty letter up here 1st for checking over

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

just post it here as text then we can edit if necessary

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

That's great work.  Well done on both the content and the level of snottiness.  That's exactly the sort of thing your wife should send, let them know she's sussed their sordid scheme and will be big trouble for them if they do court.  Fancy trying to charge her for overstaying for one minute!

 

Excellent "Dear Philip and Sian" research, I must confess I didn't know who ran PE, this will be something to suggest to Caggers in future PE cases!

 

If none of the other regulars object invest in a 2nd class stamp tomorrow and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.



My Road
My Town
My County
My Postcode

Date
Your Reference No.

Dear Philip and Sian,
Thanks for wasting your pennies and sending me a letter before claim. I
understand you think I owe you something.
I had a good laugh at the idea you actually really thought I'd take such tripe
seriously and cough up!
Now, you know that your claim has no basis and I know that you know that
your claim has no basis
Your can either drop this hopeless case or get a good spanking in court where I
will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and I’ll be able
spend some of your ill-gotten gains.


Me

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...