VCS/ELMS PCN PAPLOC now claimform - No Stopping - John Lennon Liverpool Airport

[lookinforinfo]

I agree with FTMDave that you have produced a well researched WS.

 

A couple of points. In 2019 Ancala bought into the Airport and the share distribution is Ancala 45%, Peel Group 45% and Liverpool council 10%.  One would have expected that for there to be a legal contract between VCS and the others it would require signatories from all three companies plus witnesses too as per the companies Act 2006. But VCS tend not to observe such niceties as complying with legislation.

 

On the 7th February the Government brought out its new Code of Practice to "keep cowboy private companies in check". There is a belief by many people who are aware of the parking situation in England that VCS are one of those cowboys.

 

One of their aims is to reduce the charges by up to 50% to put them on a more equal footing with Councils many of who use more expensive methods of control by the use of many warden patrols as opposed to the use of a few spies and extensive use of ANPR cameras that are often inaccurate and don't always bother to obtain Council permission for their signs despite this being a legal requirement.

 

Another new clause will be to ban" rip off" [the Governments words] debt collection fees charged by such companies as VCS who are still doing them in your case despite the Government saying that they are a rip off. if they will be a rip off when the CoP comes into force, it is obviously a rip off now which is one reason for VCS being referred as a cowboy company. Even when the situation is pointed out to them they blatantly continue doing it. The sooner VCS and its are removed from being able to access the DVLA, the better.

 

Obviously there may be other points to raise when you receive the WS from VCS so there may be quite a few additions to come. Please post up their WS when you receive it. 

We have seen a few of VCS witness Statements just recently and it is worthwhile for you to read the suggestions at other JLA threads such as Ray's and Doomtrooper. 

 

 

[Flamjam]

Hi again all, 

 

Received a letter yesterday, offering me final chance to settle for £192.50 payable in 14 days, if I don’t they will seek further costs of £220 for a local solicitor…

 

also received their WS today, I’ll get that uploaded later before I make the advised changes to my WS 

Thanks

[Doomtrooper]

On 14/02/2022 at 23:51, lookinforinfo said:

I agree with FTMDave that you have produced a well researched WS.

 

A couple of points. In 2019 Ancala bought into the Airport and the share distribution is Ancala 45%, Peel Group 45% and Liverpool council 10%.  One would have expected that for there to be a legal contract between VCS and the others it would require signatories from all three companies plus witnesses too as per the companies Act 2006. But VCS tend not to observe such niceties as complying with legislation.

 

On the 7th February the Government brought out its new Code of Practice to "keep cowboy private companies in check". There is a belief by many people who are aware of the parking situation in England that VCS are one of those cowboys.

 

One of their aims is to reduce the charges by up to 50% to put them on a more equal footing with Councils many of who use more expensive methods of control by the use of many warden patrols as opposed to the use of a few spies and extensive use of ANPR cameras that are often inaccurate and don't always bother to obtain Council permission for their signs despite this being a legal requirement.

 

Another new clause will be to ban" rip off" [the Governments words] debt collection fees charged by such companies as VCS who are still doing them in your case despite the Government saying that they are a rip off. if they will be a rip off when the CoP comes into force, it is obviously a rip off now which is one reason for VCS being referred as a cowboy company. Even when the situation is pointed out to them they blatantly continue doing it. The sooner VCS and its are removed from being able to access the DVLA, the better.

 

Obviously there may be other points to raise when you receive the WS from VCS so there may be quite a few additions to come. Please post up their WS when you receive it. 

We have seen a few of VCS witness Statements just recently and it is worthwhile for you to read the suggestions at other JLA threads such as Ray's and Doomtrooper. 

 

 

 

Where it can be proven that Airport is owned by Ancala 45%, Peel Group 45% and Liverpool council 10%

[lookinforinfo]

 

 

 

Ancala acquires 45% interest in Liverpool John Lennon Airport

WWW.LIVERPOOLAIRPORT.COM

---

Welcome to the official Liverpool John Lennon Airport website - connecting Liverpool and the North West with the world.

 

[Flamjam]

12 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

 

 

 

Ancala acquires 45% interest in Liverpool John Lennon Airport

WWW.LIVERPOOLAIRPORT.COM

---

Welcome to the official Liverpool John Lennon Airport website - connecting Liverpool and the North West with the world.

 

Should I include this in my WS, bearing in mind Ancala made the purchase after my PCN was issued ?

[lookinforinfo]

You could put them to strict proof what changes to the contract and the running of the airport have occurred since the arrival of Ancala. If VCS aver no changes the put to strict proof that Ancala has agreed to retain the status quo.

 

More important though is the new CoP that is coming out and why VCS is not taking them into account as they are not in force but have been introduced because the rogues among the parking fraternity have made a new charter necessary.

 

For instance Bye Laws- this is what the new CoP guidance states

"   3. Where byelaws have been made, unless specific legal provision has been made to suspend them, they take precedence and therefore careful consideration must be given to ensuring that the parking management arrangements are consistent with them.  "

 

And what they say on No Stopping

 

Parking operators must only pursue parking charges in instances that could be interpreted as stopping if they have explicit consent to do so on evidenced security or safety grounds from their conformity assessment body, following audit of the adequacy of the signs and surface markings in place to inform drivers of the restrictions in place.

 

Did VCS do this? Of course not. That would have impinged on their ability to rip off motorists.But do give them stick on not even trying to comply with the new code. It just confirms that they are one of the parking companies that are described as rogues.

{i am trying to find another piece on the No Stopping part of the CoP where stopping to check directions etc was a legitimate short time halt that would not broach the No Stopping rule

 

 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

7 hours ago, Flamjam said:

Received a letter yesterday, offering me final chance to settle for £192.50 payable in 14 days, if I don’t they will seek further costs of £220 for a local solicitor…

And Cagger Alaska101 hoisted Simon with his own petard by including mention of the letter in his/her WS.

 

Look at simsplayer96's Supplemental WS at post 77 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430939-vcs-anpr-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-berkeley-centre-sheffield-claim-dismissed/page/4/#comments  Versions of paras 10, 11 & 12 need to go in your WS.

 

When you have time post up both Simon's WS plus the revised version of yours.

 

[Flamjam]

I've uploaded VCS WS, i hope i've done it correct

 

 

Claimants WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

I don't know if others are having the same problems, but for me pages 1-20 are Ambreen's letter & the claimform repeated ad infinitum.

 

VCS's WS is there, though, from page 20.

[Doomtrooper]

It looks like same generic copy paste WS by VCS? Am I right?

[FTMDave]

I'm very tired but I recognise loads of their usual bilge with the out of date contact

[dx100uk]

39 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

I don't know if others are having the same problems, but for me pages 1-20 are Ambreen's letter & the claimform repeated ad infinitum.

 

VCS's WS is there, though, from page 20.

dupes in WS sorted

 

dx

 

[lapwing_larry]

I see it is the usual rewording of contravention code 46 from the contract (Parking/Waiting on a Roadway where Stopping is Prohibited) to the NTK (Stopping on a Roadway where Stopping is Prohibited).

 

As usual, none of the contracted contravention codes relate to stopping events which begs the question whether VCS have the authority to enforce Stopping events?

 

Furthermore, the cut&paste WS continually refers to Parking even though the claimed contravention was Stopping.

They also repeat the false claim that the Keeper can be assumed to be the Driver.

 

VCS also imply that they can pick and choose whether to use POFA but the only basis in the DVLA KADOE contract for obtaining the Keeper details is for using POFA. Of course, POFA can't apply on airport land where byelaws apply - plus POFA is only relevant for parking (something the new CoP makes clear)

 

5.3 Prohibition on stopping

The provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 relate specifically to the parking of vehicles on relevant land and the recovery of parking charges – they arose from the need to respect landowners’ interests given the introduction of the prohibition on wheelclamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e. to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle.

 

Plenty of good grounds for a good defence.

Edited February 18, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[Flamjam]

https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=157430

 

Been looking into the signage, and it appears there in no planning permission for all those signs, it says application withdrawn, or is there another application that i have missed?? 

[brassnecked]

They cannot call a stopping event Parking in an area where stopping is prohibited in essence,  PPC's  have tried that one and lost with invoicing a broken down vehicle and the tow truck arriving therefore stopping to retrieve the vehicle.

 

Much cut 'n paste from Ambreen, but Para 17 is a brilliant example of an oxymoron,

 

"The vehicle observed Stopped on the Access Road in LJLA where this is prohibited."

 

As this was a prohibition, stopping cannot be a Parking event as its a prohibition so parking not permitted.

 

"This rendered the Defendant in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Car Park and liable for the
Parking Charge advertised on the signage."

 

This is an Access Road, not a Car park, so how T&C's for a car park can apply to a prohibition on an Access Road, must be some form of DoubleThink on Ambreen's part.

 

24 Beavis taken out of context again

 

Plenty to go after in that load of verbal printed diahorrea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doomtrooper]

What case was it?

Edited February 18, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[brassnecked]

Was a thread on CAG will search it, but more to the point that would be breakdown, the main point is stopping in a place where stopping is Prohibited, cannot be a parking event, and if a road not a car park it can't be parking.  The team will come up with help and suggestions for your WS  when you have a skeleton sorted.

[Flamjam]

I've made a few changes to my WS, can you have a quick look to see if i've missed any important info out or what further changes i should make, thanks again!

WS VCS 2 1 1 (1).pdf

[Doomtrooper]

I would explain what is KADOE contract before 5.2

[lapwing_larry]

Concerning the planning permission point, you need explain a bit further why this is important. The usual argument is that these signs are illegal and VCS can't benefit from something illegal.

 

I think it is also worth calling out the VCS claim that their signs detail the terms and conditions of parking. The signs in their witness pack make no reference to parking. It is good to show all the inconsistencies in this cut and paste WS in order to expose it for the incoherent nonsense it is.

[FTMDave]

4 hours ago, Flamjam said:

https://lar.liverpool.gov.uk/planning/index.html?fa=getApplication&id=157430

 

Been looking into the signage, and it appears there in no planning permission for all those signs, it says application withdrawn, or is there another application that i have missed?? 

There's also the matter that you asked to see proof of planning permission in your CPR request and they didn't reply.

 

What you've written is excellent.  I'll read through it carefully this evening when I knock off work and will suggest any tweaks. 

[brassnecked]

Looking good I'd personally change  at the time of the alleged Breach of Contract in 7  to something like at the time of the alleged parking incident.   Idea being to bolster that parking per se is and can not be part of any alleged contract where a prohibition is in force.

 

The others will no doubt have more useful suggestions soon.

[FTMDave]

OK, I've read both your excellent WS and Ambreen's cut & paste tripe.  I like the way you've put headings on the sections so the judge can clearly see what legal arguments you're making.

 

"LIABILTY" needs to be changed to "NO KEEPER LIABILITY".

 

In 7.1 add about the CPR request, that VCS did not show you proof of PP, that you believe they don't have PP, this is a criminal offence under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1962 and 1990 and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

 

In your conclusion section 9 where you're hammering Ambreen you might as well stick in another point -

 

"In her paragraph (23) Ms Arshad makes great play of the fact that the IPC considers the Claimant's signage to be sufficient.  The IPC is a trade body, hopelessly biased in favour of its members.  In fact the IPC was set up as a rival to the British Parking Association because in the opinion of companies like VCS the British Parking Association was far too fair to motorists and cancelled far too many tickets.  It is neither here nor there what the IPC considers as reasonable and lawful.  What counts is what the law in England and Wales considers as reasonable and lawful".

 

I agree with the excellent points made by Doomtrooper, lapwing_larry and BN.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Flamjam I know you have produced an excellent WS but there is another section that you could add at the start . And that is the new CoP that is coming out.  The reason for it coming out is to use the words of one Minister   " Drivers to receive greater protection against rogue private parking operators "

 

Neil O‘Brien, Minister for Levelling Up, said: “Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a system of misleading and confusing signage, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

 

Given the severe criticism handed down by the Government and the necessity to bring out new legislation to control parking company excesses you would have thought that VCS would have attempted to distance itself from being described as a rogue operator, by already embracing at least some of the new regulations. They have not and the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that VCS is one of the principal targets of the new legislation.

 

For instance the airport is governed by Bye Laws and therefore not relevant land .

 

The new legislation covers this-

 

4. Where land is governed by byelaws, those byelaws cannot legally be set aside unless specific provision is made to do so, hence it is important that parking operators do not confuse the enforcement of byelaws with the contractual application of parking charges.

 

However you can see that the Notice to Keeper includes VCS invoking PoFA2012 by claiming they can transfer the driver liability to the keeper when this is patently untrue. Furthermore the paralegal refers to being able to transfer the liability to the keeper  in her WS at Point 19. This is tantamount to fraud. PoFA cannot apply where Bye Laws are in force. No wonder she does not want to be involved in the Court hearing.

 

The new legislation will include

"Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned"

"     the Code prevents parking operators from adding any additional fees to the original parking charge or parking tariff

 

So you would think that VCS would not want it felt that they were ripping off motorists and remove any costs above that stated on their signage. You would be wrong. In fact far from that picture painted by Ambreen Arshad on the background of VCS on point 4

 

VCS are notorious for ripping off motorists at every turn including issuing a PCN for a motorist stopped at a pedestrian crossing.

 

The Minister goes on to say 

 

"    And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely.  "

 

Surely it is right to call time in this rogue company who have even failed to pinpoint the spot on any of their copious maps where my car was stopped.

 

Given the size of the airport and the number of approach roads [four] it shouldn't be that difficult. Could it be because the road in question is not included in the contract with JLA.

 

1. "The Site" means the car park(s), un-adopted roadways and/or land situated at LlvERPooL JoHN LENNoN AiRpoRT .

 

Is the approach road a car park? No. 

An un-adopted road? NO 

Land situated at the airport? No it is a main approach road.

 

You could if you want insert it as is on your WS just to push home what a load of codswallop their case is.

You may want to have a look at 

Private Parking Code of Practice - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

and 

Private Parking Code of Practice: explanatory document – how was it developed and what will it change? - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

 

since I remember reading in there somewhere that Council planning permission was included

Edited February 19, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[brassnecked]

So with the excellent points from FTMDave and lookedinforinfo you might add the impossibility of using POFA to transfer liability as a stop on an approach road cannot be a parking event, so POFA cannot apply as approach road not a car park or Relevant land in your para 7.