VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - No Stopping - Bristol Airport **CLAIM DISMISSED**

[FTMDave]

That communicates the essential stuff.

 

Generally we make the letters snottier to show Simple Simon you would be a tough opponent in court and would cost him, so best to leave you in peace and look for a mug who would just cough up instead.

 

Have a look at post 38 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/441307-vcs-spycar-pcn-no-stopping-jla-liverpool-airport/page/2/#comment-5142779  You'll need to adapt it as it was sent to solicitors representing Simple Simon and it was a second Letter Before Claim but the meat of the snotty letter is there.                       

 

[FTMDave]

What date is on their LoC?

[FTMDave]

So you should reply by 10 February, no rush.

[FTMDave]

The details you've given us are fine, we don't need to see the claimform.

[FTMDave]

Keep an eye on Zimbird's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439264-unknown-vcs-ccj-bristol-airport-stopping-in-a-zone-where-stopping-is-prohibited-was-abroad/page/11/#comments

 

Zimbird has an imminent court case against VCS - for no stopping at Bristol Airport.

[FTMDave]

If you click here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/393251-received-a-court-claim-from-a-private-parking-speculative-invoice-how-to-deal-with-it-hereupdated-dec-2021/  and scroll down to  Q2) How should I defend?  there is a template defence.

 

I see six of the eight pages of the contract are missing - good own goal from VCS! 

 

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, Lazy farmer said:

The amount they are claiming is £170 + £35 court fee + £50 Legal representation, original Charge Notice was £100 - so defense 5. does apply?

Yep, they have made up £70 Unicorn Food Tax so include the point.

 

1 hour ago, Lazy farmer said:

And I send the Defence page 4 of the Claim Form duly filled in by post to the court  a proof of posting?

You can if you want, but generally Caggers open an account with MCOL and file the defence on-line.  It's just easier and means you can track progress on-line.

[FTMDave]

It's just defence stage LFI.

 

The reason the OP has evidence from VCS is that incredibly for once their solicitors have replied to the CPR request.

 

Sending a "contract" with six of the eight pages missing is a constant VCS own goal at this airport.

Edited April 24, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

New government code of practice

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

 

Annex F  F.1  g

[FTMDave]

If you look at post 94 on Doomtrooper's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/441307-vcs-spycar-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-jla-liverpool-airport/page/4/#comments  there is a cracking WS.  It's based on Alaska101's but is updated due to the government's new Code of Practice.  It's a VCS-airport-no stopping case like yours.

 

You can use probably 90% of it and also weave in your personal stuff about the rubbish signage.

 

Sadly Alaska101 has not updated their thread despite numerous requests so we don't know the result.

 

 

[FTMDave]

On 02/07/2022 at 20:22, Lazy farmer said:

Hypothetically if the defendant  was the driver would the judge ask this & would the defendant be obliged to answer?

It is up to Simon to prove who the driver was, and if he's been too lazy/arrogant to use POFA properly then tough.

 

At least that's how things should work and how the vast majority of judges consider things.  We did get a useless judge in a set aside hearing recently who did ask the Cagger if they were driving.

 

On 02/07/2022 at 20:22, Lazy farmer said:

Can anyone confirm if the roads within Bristol airport are not relevant land and are covered by the RTA & subject to byelaws?

Yep.

 

On 02/07/2022 at 20:22, Lazy farmer said:

My current thoughts are to keep my ws on point & not make hundreds of points about whether a contract exists between VCS and the airport & whether they have planning permission for their signage.

Lack of PP, by the letter of the law, means their case should be chucked out, but in practice that's not the case.

 

However, we have seen a hell of a lot of cases where the judge has picked up on no valid contract being produced.  That could be one of your aces and it would be madness not to include it.

Edited July 3, 2022 by FTMDave
Typos

[FTMDave]

That is a cracking WS.  Well done.

 

If I'm being ultra pernickety ...

 

In (10) you refer to VCS's charge as a "fine", but it isn't, it's an invoice.

 

I think it would be more logical to place (9.1.1) and (9.1.2) in your (10) FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT section.

 

Similarly (10.1) would be better at the end of your (5) NO KEEPER LIABILITY section.

 

As I say, pernickety ...

[FTMDave]

So stick in a new 5.5 paragraph in your already-excellent WS to hammer this point home.

 

You should wait till the last minute before sending yours in the hope of being able to ridicule VCS's, or alternatively point out to the court that they haven't sent a WS.  On the 20th I would e-mail the court their copy and send Simon his by 1st class post.

[FTMDave]

You're right, Ambreen has produced the usual copy & paste tripe.

 

Some changes immediately come to mind.  New 5.4 -

 

5.4  The vehicle is on a fleet policy with more than 20 drivers.  The Claimant has just assumed that I was the driver during the incident in question without any proof.

 

Obviously change for accuracy.

 

in your section 9, cut out all the points up to and including 9.3 and substitute with -

 

9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 charge plus an additional £70 described as “debt collection costs”.  No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under the Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.

 

9.1  In paras 36 and 37 of her Witness Statement, the Claimant's paralegal makes great play of the fact that the trade association the Claimant belongs to allows a debt recovery charge and that "the sum must not exceed £60".  The Claimant has added £70 so on their own admittance has broken their trade association code of practice.

 

9.2.  In reality is it legislation, not the Claimant's trade association, which decides what is reasonable and lawful.  Section 9 of the new government Code of Practice, published on 7 February 2022, and based on the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 regulates the matter of recovery costs:

 

"The Parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued".

9.2.1  Section 5.3 of the new Code of Practice states the following:“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 landowner’s interests given the prohibition on wheel clamping, and so largely envisage circumstances where a wheel-clamp may otherwise have been applied i.e to a stationary, generally unoccupied, vehicle.  However, this Code also applies to instances where the prohibition on stopping arises from a clear security concern e.g within airports.  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“.

9.2.2.  Section 7.2 of the new CoP, defines explicitly, when photographic evidence should be used to serve notice: "Care must be taken to ensure that photographic evidence from camera vehicles is only used to serve a notice of
parking charge in respect of parked vehicles, not vehicles whose drivers have momentarily stopped e.g. to check directions or an address within a business park”.

9.2.3.  The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible.  The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation.  This indicates that the new CoP should be adhered to now, where possible, but clearly VCS are choosing to ignore these new rules, and continuing to go about their business as normal, regardless of the law.

9.3.  Even before publication of the government's Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges.  The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that "The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the Notice to Keeper" - so in this case £100.

 

All your points from 9.4. are fine as they are.

 

More later.  Work calls.

[FTMDave]

If you want a laugh - and to plant in the judge's mind that they are liars - stick in two new paragraphs between FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT and CONCLUSION.

 

11.  Ambreen Arshad is being rather disingenuous (Claimant's Witness Statement para 40) when she says she "may" not be able to attend the hearing.  I have researched scores of VCS cases and neither she nor Mr Mohammed Wali (the other paralegal employed by VCS to write their Witness Statements) have ever appeared in court.  This is particularly striking as during the pandemic hearings were on the telephone or on-line with no travelling involved.  In no circumstances do VCS want their Witness Statement authors to appear in a person at a hearing where they could be questioned.

 

12.  In a number of recent cases VCS have claimed to have not received the Defendant's Witness Statement, although the Defendant had proof of posting.  I fully expect this trick to be tried in my case.

[FTMDave]

2 hours ago, Lazy farmer said:

I'm not great with MS Word so the numbering & pagination will need tidying once the draft is complete.

No worries, we'll help out.

 

2 hours ago, Lazy farmer said:

My copied defence also lists Parking Eye v Beavis 2015 - is this a bad idea?

Are you sure?  Didn't you file the standard short defence?

[FTMDave]

It's not a problem at all as you & Simon are using different parts of the judgement.

 

VCS are saying that the judge found that a contract had been entered into and that the £85 (now £100) was payable.

 

You're saying the judge said the £85 (now £100) was the maximum that could be charged.

 

You're both right about different parts of the judgement.

[FTMDave]

If you want to make it crystal clear that you understand the judgement and are using it in its entirety, unlike Simon, then change your paragraph to -

 

9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery.  In para 24 of their Witness Statement the Claimant quotes Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 and the fact that the judge held that the parking invoice of £85 was payable.  They omit that Beavis is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages.  It is indisputable that an alleged ”parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 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 v 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 is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process."

Edited July 16, 2022 by FTMDave
Layout improved

[FTMDave]

That is a cracking WS.  Well done.  I wouldn't change a single word.

 

What might be an idea though is to swap ABUSE OF PROCESS and FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT round. 

 

FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT is IMO more important, if accepted their whole claim goes in the bin.

 

Whereas ABUSE OF PROCESS is quibbling about how much you would have to pay were you bang to rights.

[FTMDave]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#annex-f-exempt-vehicle-cases-no-stopping-zones-and-appeals

 

Scroll down to Annex F, F1, g. 

 

I reckon you could use that to beef up FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT.  if you do so mention it is Annex F, F1, g of the government Code of Practice introduced in February this year under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.

 

The current legal situation is that the Code is temporarily withdrawn because the fleecers are legally challenging (a) the amount of their invoices allowed and (b) debt collection charges, they are not challenging Annex F.  In any case as VCS act like the CoP doesn't exist they are hardly likely to bring up this technicality.

[FTMDave]

Well spotted. 

 

By all means include this extra clause and link it your pre-booking.  Can't harm you.  The judge may well agree, but even if the judge disagrees then you've lost nothing by trying.

 

The bye-laws are a good idea too.  These are the laws that cover the airport, not something made up by a grubby private parking company.  Had you done something wrong - of course you didn't - but had you then it should be the police involved and a fine in a magistrates' court.

 

Thanks for uploading the bye-laws, this will be very useful for others in the same position.

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, Lazy farmer said:

Great, ive swapped the headers

I fear I might have expressed myself badly.

 

I didn't mean just the headers.

 

I meant that point 10 (with header FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT) should go before points 9 to 9.8 (with header ABUSE OF PROCESS).

[FTMDave]

[FTMDave]

Which is the court?

[FTMDave]

I don't think this changes much.  Firstly Ambreen isn't very convincing.  Secondly, even if the judge accepts her arguments the only point she will have undermined is your (5) section about keeper liability/POFA.  All your other points remain.

 

In fact it's weird that, when given the chance to have another go, she didn't even attempt to challenge any of your other points, even that she admits VCS broke their IPC Code of Practice by adding £70 Unicorn Food Tax when £60 is the maximum in the CoP!  She could have at least claimed it was a typo or that the IPC have increased the amount.

 

Oh, and monies they make are "heavily reinvested" in the site, are they?  They're "invested" in Simon's beer money!