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

[brassnecked]

Keep that letter with the dodgy date it may well be useful later if they did issue a claim on strength of it.

[brassnecked]

Send it exactly as FTM Dave has written it it indicates you know their game it doesn't pay to be nice to these people.

[brassnecked]

Yes rearranging as per FTMDaves suggestion is logical, it stops the Judge having to go backwards and forwards through the WS like a grasshopper, puts it all nice and linear.

[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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

Looks good,

Typo at 7.4 should it be Bordering?

At 8.6 regarding the Letter, include it and indicate it as an exhibit at that point, so the Judge knows VCS have indeed used a coercive letter for spurious costs not applicable in Small Claims Track.

9.1 Ms Arshad rather than Ambreen first name best avoided always use surname.

[brassnecked]

Yes looks good for sure, with FTNDave's tweaks above. If you can make the font size for the quoted section 5.3 of the COP the same as the rest of the WS for consistency.

[brassnecked]

Excellent defence

should be enough to rattle VCS when it arrives.

[brassnecked]

They might appear with a brief who got the papers night before, the author of the WS highly unlikely to appear as they would not want to be cross examined.  They think Beavis permits the extra charges, it does not.  Good luck tomorrow let us know how you get on.

[brassnecked]

If its VCS its shenanigans and intransigence and attempts to mislead the judge to bias them against the defendant, looks like its becoming part of Simon's MO to deny receipt of paperwork on time.

 

[brassnecked]

If you have the proof of posting email a scan with a read reciept to the court quoting the case Number.

[brassnecked]

Now it looks like his usual MO, and we will have cases where he has done this to quote, it won't go well for Simon.

[brassnecked]

VCS alleged non reciepts are an attempt at abuse of process, which is a why the Free Proof Of Posting is essential, as is legally acceptable proof that VCS have had the WS, if First Class posted Monday deemed delivered Wednesday, so a scan of the proof and the original are good to include in a pack ready to produce if VCS try the " We haven't had the defendants WS your 'onour really we haven't guv" tale of woe.

[brassnecked]

Yes include those previous case where they have done the shenanigans of non receipt, you never know Simon might get hauled up in front of the Beak soon for perjury

[brassnecked]

A Free Proof of Posting better, Signed for is good, but these people have form for refusing signed for post, and complaining they have not received it.  A FPP means in law its deemed delivered the second working day after posting at post office, no quibble no argument its been delivered under the law and the proof of posting slip is acceptable as proof  of delivery in court..

[brassnecked]

Doubleplus proof love it, if VCS refuse delivery and say haven't had it might be problematic, as their refusal will bite them. when the pack does an Elvis and returns to sender.

[brassnecked]

Hmm Victorian Court caase in thwere,  as its no stopping can't be a parking event looks like more rubbish being chucked to bolster their attempt, other's will be along soon.

[brassnecked]

Yes that's what she is suggesting by linking those Victorian cases, that a legitimate passenger can be refused entry it may seem, that supplementary WS has done them no favours.

[brassnecked]

As DX says its Not a Fine and never can be its an invoice for an alleged breach of a contract VCS imagine you entered into by stopping on a site they infest. Its not a Criminal matter, purely Civil  under Contract law.