Unknown VCS CCJ - Bristol Airport - Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited . Was abroad

[Zimbird]

Ok here is revised WS - still have time to revise some more - so no probs! 

VCS vs xxxxxxx. 1.4.22 CAG docx copy.pdf

[Zimbird]

Did i make the mistake of doing a long pdf file name again? Oh dear u will be glad to see the back of me!

[brassnecked]

Not sure about outing your husband as driver is a good idea still, others will be along soon.

[honeybee13]

I mentioned that yesterday, BN. I thought we normally recommend not to out the driver.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

Yes I'd agree with that. HB, it might give simple simon ideas.

[FTMDave]

OK, I'll have a read through now.  But two immediate things.

 

Firstly, your EVIDENCE section is no good as it is.  You need to refer to the exhibits in the main WS, as for example you have done in (4.3).

 

Secondly, regarding outing your husband as the driver.  Your call.  Normally we would be horrified by this as Simple Simon would rush straight out and sue your husband - but your husband is in Zimbabwe so little Simon can do.  Up to you.

[Zimbird]

Ok i will go back and refer to the exhibits in the evidence section in my WS - doing now

[Zimbird]

Part of my evidence is my husbands NHS negative covid test on the same day as his Charge Notice. So it has his name on the evidence - i am happy to keep in his name. 

 

[FTMDave]

That is superb.  You have put a massive amount of work in.  Well done.  Take that Simon!

 

All the numbering is fine too.

 

In (6) change "There is a parking industry-wide period" to "There is a parking industry-wide grace period".  That was probably my typo.

 

BTW, how has Wally got his grubby little mitts on your chat with BT?

 

Moving on to the BT Meet Me complication.  As tomorrow morning is your deadline, phone the court (if you can from Zimbabwe at a rate that isn't exorbitant) or get a female friend/relative from the UK to do so as soon as it opens.  Find out if Simon has paid the hearing fee and also if with BT Meet Me the court will phone Zimbabwe.  Point out that you've already e-mailed the court twice.

 

Presuming you get nowhere have a letter prepared for the judge in Word which can then swiftly be e-mailed to the court and copied once again to Litigation and Wally.  E-mail it to the court with FAO the judge in claim XXXXX hearing on 22 April.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am the Defendant in this case.  The Claimant issued the claim against me at an old address in England but in reality I have been resident in Zimbabwe for XX years and live at XXXXX.

 

The hearing is to be via BT Meet Me but I am unsure as to whether the Court is able to call me in Zimbabwe with this service.  I have e-mailed the court on XXXXX and XXXXX (mails attached) but have yet to receive a reply.

 

I obviously realise the courts are very busy and over worked.

 

Nevertheless, I really need to know whether the hearing with BT Meet Me is possible quickly, as the only alternative is to book a return flight to England at a cost to me of around £XXXXX.

 

If it is possible to phone Zimbabwe kindly note my number(s) is/are XXXXX.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours,

 

Tomorrow I have work from 10:45 UK time but will look in half an hour before that for any last-minute necessities

 

I have no idea what effect the letter will have, but am a great believer in making your own luck.  At least the letter will be there for the judge on 22 April and will show you're not deliberately refusing to turn up.  We have had other cases where the judge has discovered the defendant is abroad and has pushed the claimant about it and the claimant has given up,.  A letter certainly can't hurt.

[brassnecked]

Point taken about husband in your case as he is in Zimbabwe, little simon could do, what it does do is highlight that he is suing the wrong person, as the WS will show the judge he is suing you as keeper. he might discontinue, and try to sue your husband at the old UK address, but he's doubly stupid if he does that. Thoughts FTMDave, lookedinforinfo.

[Zimbird]

I have organised for a friend to call the Court tomorrow morning. I  have the letter to the judge ready to be scanned with the evidence attached to the letter ie. 2 x emails to the court and my flight printed plus with it’s cost.

 

I will send off the WS first thing in one email to the court and then get all the evidence scanned in a second email and make sure they go first thing tomorrow.

 

Don’t think u need to see the final WS as have just added reference to evidence everywhere necessary and added that one word  “grace” into the relevant para. So all set unless u think of anything else that needs to change.

 

So very grateful to all of you - donation coming whether I win or lose.  Can’t express how incredible this platform is and how much help it gives.  Fingers crossed and a bit of luck

[FTMDave]

Yes, we are pretty incredible - but then so are you for refusing to give in to these absolute charlatans.

 

Yes, the WS and the letter to the judge need to go off tomorrow morning, but I wouldn't do it immediately, I'd wait to see what info. if any your friend can get from the court first.  I promise to look in at 10:15 UK time tomorrow morning.

[Zimbird]

Ok perfect - i am actually going to try and call the court from Zimbabwe. Will try on skype first and then normal land line - it appears too complicated to get someone else to do it. 

Family are not as helpful as u lot!  They think i should have paid a long time ago and be done with the stress. Anyway it is not only about me any more - they don’t get it!

Will let u know how i get on tomorrow - thanks FTMDave for being there.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for posting up the PCN. It is not PoFA compliant probably because the alleged breach happened on a road subject to Bye Laws which they are quite keen not to mention.

 

There are several things that make it non compliant the most important being the wording near the bottom of the PCN. In Schedule 4 s9 [f] it explains that if the alleged debt has not been paid by the driver then after 28 days from the date of the PCN, the keeper can be pursued.  But all  this PCN says is that VCS can pursue the keeper only on the assumption that they were the driver.

 

As you were not the driver you can tell them that and there is no need to identify  who was driving. You are signing at the end of the WS that you are telling the truth so in your case the case should be thrown out since they do not know who the driver was and you have averred that you were not the driver. End of story.

[FTMDave]

Superb.

 

I was hoping you would pop in LFI.

 

Zimbird, if there is time, change your current 7.2 to 7.3 and create a new 7.2 based on LFI's post.

 

Your family are wrong.  The set aside fee was inevitable.  After that, the way English law works, costs are already included in the claim.  If you give in, it's £257.  Lose by default if something goes wrong with the phone connection, and it's still the £257 (bar maybe a tenner's interest).  Lose after a battled court case and it's still £257 ... but the judge would most likely add on a tenner's interest but subtract the £60 Unicorn Food Tax.  So it's well worth your fighting Simon.

 

See you in the morning.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just read your WS. Since the WS that you copied from the Law has moved on and I think you should use the new Act coming out next year but with some things already in force. The government has already said that any amount over the £100 is" a rip off" and you could then use that statement to further complain about VCS not complying with the new Act and therefore calling into question their fitness to be able to acquire data from the DVLA.

 

Probably not a good idea to say that your husband has failing eyesight. When VCS lose they could possibly complain to the DVLA that he has been  driving while unfit to drive. 

 

I'll have another read of your WS when I am not so tired.

Edited April 4, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[Zimbird]

FTM Dave i am so use to you literally writing the points out - idiot proof - so i am not sure in this edit whether i have understood exactly where to put LFI’s additions. (which i am

grateful for!)

I might have one more chance of an edit before 12 noon but i have to go somewhere to scan the whole document which takes time.

Or do u think i could just email doc as attachment and scan the signed page only?

Would save me time, because every time we edit it moves the page nos etc.

If u do edit again, FTMDave could u make it idiot proof

Hopefully we r nearly there

 

Zimbird revised WS.pdf

[brassnecked]

First observation I have edited the pdf to remove your personal address, and reuploaded it for you

Going from LFI's comments on the Charge Notice, might well be better to drop all reference to your husband as the driver, chabnge to The driver, did, no need to know who are what relationship to you the driver is.  It removes the possibility of simon stupidly pursuing your husband at the old address  otherwisde its looking good, I'm sure FTMDave and LFI will help any last minute tweaks.  You have a great basis there to see Simon off and give him a good tolchocking (Nadsat for a good thrashing).

[Zimbird]

Brassnecked thank you for that - i will move all mention of my husband in the WS, except in the evidence as it proves he had a pcr test that day.

I await any further tweaks when FTMDave has a look.

Cheers

[brassnecked]

You don't have to out him as the driver, either that way, the fact the driver stopped in a place for 37 seconds on a road that is not Relevant land is a different fact to your husband needing a Covid test to fly

Likely FTMDave will be along soon.

[Zimbird]

Ok my sons girlfriend phoned the court and she got one response and i skyped the court and got another.

Basically VCS have paid the court fee mid March.  So we r all go.

The lady i spoke to believed at the court said as long as i gave the international dialling code BTMeet Me should have no issue.  However my son’s gfriend said her operator thought it could potentially be an issue and suggested we got it in writing from the court - we should not just take anyone’s word for it.  Good advice.

Waiting now for FTMDave to give the fjnal green light.

[FTMDave]

Well done.

 

So e-mail the WS to the court and CC to both Litigation and Wally.  Obviously click on the "return receipt" option.  In fact do the whole operation twice - the courts are overworked and lose mails, plus recently we've seen a nasty tactic from Simon of pretending to have not received WSs.

 

Then separately a letter to the judge -

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am the Defendant in this case.  The Claimant issued the claim against me at an old address in England but in reality I have been resident in Zimbabwe for XX years and live at XXXXX.

 

The hearing is to be via BT Meet Me but I am unsure as to whether the Court is able to call me in Zimbabwe with this service.  I have e-mailed the court on XXXXX and XXXXX (mails attached) but have yet to receive a reply.  Today I called the court twice and was given contrasting information.  I was advised to request confirmation in writing from the court.

 

I obviously realise the courts are very busy and over worked.

 

Nevertheless, I really need to know whether the hearing with BT Meet Me is possible quickly, as the only alternative is to book a return flight to England at a cost to me of around £XXXXX.

 

If it is possible to phone Zimbabwe kindly note my number(s) is/are XXXXX.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours,

 

Write "FAO the judge in claim XXXXX hearing on 22 April" in the subject tit3e, copy to Litigation and Wally, and send it twice.

 

Give me a minute re the changes suggested by LFI.

[FTMDave]

If you have time make these changes to (7) -

7. No Keeper Liability:

 

7.1. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity the Claimant believes the Defendant is liable but states that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.

7.2. In fact the Claimant is suing the wrong person, the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Act allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but 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 road in question is a public road, not a private car park, and is subject to the Road Traffic Act and Bristol Airport bye-laws.

 

7.3. In Schedule 4 s9 [f] of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it is stated that if the alleged debt has not been paid by the driver then after 28 days from the date of the PCN, the keeper can be pursued.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with this requirement, it merely states that VCS can pursue the keeper only on the assumption that they were the driver.  I was not the driver.

Edited April 4, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

And this to 11.1 -

 

11.1. As well as the original £100 parking charge and £110 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £60 described as “Debt Recovery charge”.  The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 limits the amount that parking companies can claim to £100.  Government ministers and government web pages that explain the new law refer to any amount over £100 as "a rip off".

[lookinforinfo]

Zimbird

I am sorry I came to your thread late.

However it is vital for your case that you get across that VCS are pursuing the wrong person.

You as the keeper are not liable as the event happened on non relevant land so because PoFA does not apply then VCS can only pursue the driver.

As you were not the driver they cannot pursue you.