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

[Lazy farmer]

Its been allocated to my local court ( i wont name it), it's only 100 yds from where i work.

 

 

[AndyOrch]

Then drop it in by hand or refer to your N157 Notice of Allocation which contains the local county court contact details,

[Lazy farmer]

[Lazy farmer]

Unfortunately due to my remote location I had to send my WS  on the 19th & VCS have quickly turned around a supplemental WS (attached) before the 24th Deadline.

They have cited test cases to argue the land is relevant & that Byelaws are arbitrary.

 

Any thoughts?

vcs supplemental ws 21.07.22.pdf

[brassnecked]

This is a CRTL-C CTRL-V cut 'n paste from Ambreen, she trotted out these cases in a previous thread with a very similar Supplemental WS, the Victorian cases about Hotel porter's and h Omnibus driver's (the buses would be horse drawn in 1857 probably) rights of access onto private land.n  They are anxious to get the Bye-laws undermined.

 

Other's will be along soon, they are hoping the supplemental WS will be sufficient to make you cough up after all they have cited a modern case and rtwo arcane Victorian era ones that they contend diminish Byelaws, where failure to observe them is a criminal matter dealt with by police and magistrates with Civil Contract law where they contend the criminal law can be usurped by a Civil contract, a legal impossibility in a sane world,   Private Parking Companies seem to inhabit the rabbit hole from Rev Charles Dodgson's aka Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland.

[honeybee13]

Good spot BN. You don't remember the thread, I suppose?

 

HB

[brassnecked]

Will look at some fairly recent threads, its not that long ago, they are trying to impose civil over criminal law.  Its tantamount to fraud in a way to suggest a civil contract can usurp criminal law, but Simon and his crew are very inventive.

[brassnecked]

This one HB  Flamjams thread Post# 145   the linked VCS missive from Ambreen looks li the original attempt to go behind the Bye laws to subsume a Criminal law below a Civil Action in Contract.  look at the similarities Same 2013 case quoted and the same Victorian ones involving hotel porter's and bus drivers.

 

 

 

[honeybee13]

Brilliant work, BN. Well done.

 

HB

[brassnecked]

Looks like VCS are becoming creative by trying to undemine criminal law below a Civil Claim in Contract, reducing Bye Laws to an insignificance, a mere trifle an inconvenience to be bushed aside for a contract, this is a new low and very shaky ground for them to walk on.  Wonder what Andyorch,  DX, LFI and FTMDave wil make of this?c

[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!

[brassnecked]

Its more the challenges we can put against their attempts to subvert Criminal Jurisdiction, just need a couple more of these then go to town on destroying them. 

[lapwing_larry]

These cut and paste arguments from Ambreen also appeared in a case I was involved in (and won!). I barely bothered to address them in the defence as I could not see how the points being made were that relevant to the defence case.

In 6, Ambreen just seems to be claiming this is private land. I don't think this is contended.

 

In 7, she seems to be arguing that there is no automatic right of access. This is also not really a point of contention.

 

In 8, she is claiming that the claimant is within their rights to devise a scheme that determines who can access their property and on what basis. This also does not seem to be contentious.

 

In 10, it is then a great leap to claim that the above then means that byelaws are arbitrary. From the Private Parking Code of Practice Feb 2022: "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." Ambreen seems to be deliberately and disingenuously conflating these two things.

 

In 11, there seems to be a repeat of 8 i.e. the landowner can determine who enters their land and introduce T&Cs. Whether the T&Cs have been accepted, whether there is a contract, if the charges are fair etc are all valid points of contention for the defendant though.

 

As for 12, Ambreen seems to be arguing that the defendant is claiming that the byelaws somehow negate the rights of a landowner to control access to private land. I am sure that claim in not being made. Whether the landowner imposes other terms and conditions is not relevant to the defence that POFA does not apply as the land is not relevant as Byelaws are in place.

 

[brassnecked]

@lapwing_larry she is using a word salad to obfuscate for sure looks like its a new VCS tactic, more a frightener than anything that would be compelling to a judge. Ambreen must think the trawling up of old Victorian cases about hotel porter's using private land as an access and horse bus drivers doing whatever they do is anything but an attempt to bamboozle a Defendant.It also reads like an attempt to put Contract law superior to Criminal Law.   Its like how they used to use CPS vAJH films and Elliott V Loake to try to undermine non compliance with POFA.  Excel VCS's sister came unstuck badly with those two cases.

[lapwing_larry]

A word salad indeed BN. No judge should fall for this.

The previous case I referred to had a witness statement written more than a year ago. These same old cases and arguments about hotel porters etc appeared there. Unconvincing then and still unconvincing now.

[Lazy farmer]

Thank you everyone.

Should I put together a supplemental WS (it would be technically late) or just prepare a defence to each of Ambreens points for judgment day?

[brassnecked]

Initially make some notes to challenge them with the others will be along soon then you have a basis for a supplemental if needed, but those points look so desperate a judge might laugh them out of court, but best to prepare even if not trying to submit a supplemental of your own.

[dx100uk]

and?

 

dx

[Lazy farmer]

I have set aside Sunday to revise all the points prior to court on Thursday 25th.

I will no doubt post up a few queries then. 

[lookinforinfo]

Point 10 is totally mendacious.

VCS are well aware that there are Byelaws in operation at the airport which is why they didn't use PoFA in their PCN. (They said they would pursue the keeper as the driver because with Byelaws, the airport is not  relevant land the alleged debt cannot be transferred to the keeper should the driver not pay.)

The damning evidence is, as Lapwing Larry pointed out above is contained in the Private Parking Code of Practice. It beggars belief that Ambreen and VCS have not read it as it  will affect them and their PCNs soon enough.

I would complain bitterly to the Judge that point 10 would appear to be perjurious and must be stamped on since she this is not the first time she has used it.

People who do not have access to the internet will be .mislead  by her Statement of Truth leading to them paying up on the basis of a untruth.

[brassnecked]

Some notes to challenge Ambreen's point 10 to the judge an idea, they are obviously trying to use those Victorian cases to "go behind" and usurp bye laws and transfer a liability that cannot be transferred as land nor Relevant Land under POFA which cannot apply.

[lookinforinfo]

And ignorance of the Law is no defence.

[Lazy farmer]

Gone through their WS & supplemental WS and my own to try & make sure I understand everything.

 

The 2013 case quoted with First Great Western is about the ability of a landowner to offer a paid permit scheme for taxi drivers to use a taxi rank at a railway station so is quite different to an airport where the public have free access. I’m hoping the judge will not be swayed by this..

thank you to everyone who has helped thus far.

[brassnecked]

Its not strictly relevant it  has put it in there to add confusion/

[Lazy farmer]

Court tomorrow has been postponed with no new date yet.