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

[Lazy farmer]

Update

 

MCOL Aos & defend all submitted, CPR31.14 sent to ELMS Legal with proof of posting, 11.04.22

 

Defence to be submitted within 33 days of Claim form date 04.04.22

[lookinforinfo]

In an earlier post I mentioned that their PCN was non PoFA compliant. There was no real need for it to be since they sent it off in time so the reason that they didn't use the correct words is because the road is subject to Bye Laws.  As such the land you stopped on was not relevant land so not subject to PoFA. 

[Lazy farmer]

Lookinforinfo - the post when you mentioned a PCN that was out of time was my other post about an unrelated PCN picked up for overstaying in a free car park.

 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN for Bristol  Airport was in time but it is still non compliant-and that would be because the land is covered by Bye Laws which are not relevant land with regard to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As it isn't relevant land they cannot add the usual words that you as keeper are liable for the debt if the driver does not pay. 

[Lazy farmer]

Just received a pack of paperwork from ELMS.

 

Included is a service agreement between VCS ltd & Bristol Airport Ltd (nothing about rights to enter into contracts with motorists) Then a load of photocopied pictures of their signs, all the letters sent to me, Google maps pictures of the airport (?), screenshots of their  progress on the ‘case’ against me & some pics of the car allegedly stopped. 

No copies of planning permission for signs. 

I can pdf it at work & post if required. 
 

in the meantime I’ve been researching my defence, how’s this?

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded OR registered keeper of *****

2.  The signage is prohibitive in nature and not a genuine offer of a contract for consideration. 

3.  In any case it is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. 

4.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

[dx100uk]

scan up everything one multipage PDf only

[lookinforinfo]

I bet they didn't show where you actually parked.

Edited April 19, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[Lazy farmer]

Paperwork received from ELMS

There was also pictures of the car & screenshots of the ELMS system showing progress of claim but i dont know how to redact all the personal info & it doesnt really tell you anything.

ELMS CPR return.pdf

[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! 

 

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks

So planning to use CAG's handy template:

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle].

 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant.

 

3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 

 

4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.

 

5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 

 

6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

 

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

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

[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.

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks FTMDave.

[lookinforinfo]

The  WS you have produced needs to be beefed up.

There is no mention that the PCN is not PoFA compliant therefore they cannot pursue you as the keeper. Now they have to prove that you were the driver and assuming that you were is not sufficient in Law.

 

There are something like 5 pages of the contract missing-did they send them and if so could you please upload them as there are often items in the contact that work in your favour. As you say there is nothing in the contract that we can see that allows VCS to pursue motorists to Court so you must state that VCS do not appear to have permission to pursue motorists to court. The contract is signed by Graeme Gamble who is not listed as a director of Bristol airports and VCS have not signed the contract. The airport is apparently owned by Ontario Teachers Pension plan and there is no linking authorisation for Bristol Airports to sign on their behalf so that contract is not valid.

 

Then there is the fact that their postcode of where the alleged offence took place is wrong. If they say you were in the other place then their case fails as you were not at that place at the time indicated.

 

Moving on to the new Private Parking Code of Practice  brought out by the Government which is designed to root out the rogues in the parking industry. Whilst some of the new Act has yet to come into force, the Government expects that those changes that can be brought in sooner should be. One of things that has become apparent is that the maximum that can be charged  by VCS is £100 and any amount over that is "a rip off" [Tory Minister's words]. So VCS is one of the rogues and as such should not be allowed to access DVLA data.

I cannot find it at the moment but also in the new Act is that where motorists stop their car for a short time to check their sat. nav. for example, they should not be penalised.  So VCS are being particularly greedy by keeping  on pursuing you so  don't forget to point out to the JUdge that they are the rogues for still not observing the Law. It also helps to ensure you win.

 

 

 

[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

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Dave. I wasn't sure where we were with this. At least it isn't wasted  as it can be the basis for the WS should it come to that.

Hope I haven't confused you Lazy farmer.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just found the example I was looking for

 

F1` Exempt Circumstances

 

g) a vehicle paused on a private road network simply because the driver needs to check directions e.g. on an industrial estate where the driver has a legitimate need to access premises within that estate.

[Lazy farmer]

Thanks both.

 

Lookinforinfo - that exemption exactly sums up my experience, where does it come from?

[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

[lookinforinfo]

I should add that VCS will probably counter by saying that the new Code of Practice is not yet in force. Ignorant twonks.

Whilst the BPA and ISC have not updated their Codes of Practice , parts of the Act that can be introduced should be. There is no reason why exemptions should not be observed according to the Government.

 

The only reason for holding other parts of it up are because they will all have to bring out new PCNs that do not look like Council ones and the changes will require amendments to contracts with land owners.

 

The paragraph below this is in the introduction to the new Act and should it go to Court, show it to the Judge and he will put VCS in their place.

 

"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."

[brassnecked]

VCS are trying to push cases like this through before they are found out in court, so that F1 exempt circumstances should be incorporated into a WS going forward.

[Lazy farmer]

Just received Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track

 

Assume no to mediation & ask for my local court?

 

Have until 16th May to respond 

[dx100uk]

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/347310-legal-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track-correct-at-sept-2016/#comment-5088148

3 copies

yes to mediation (unless you filed our Statute Barred Defence OR this is a claim for a Private Parking Ticket)

1 wit you

the rest is obv

1 to the court

1 to sols (omit phone/sig/email)

1 for your file

 

dx

[lookinforinfo]

Yes to mediation?

[dx100uk]

Bold bit...

[lookinforinfo]

Just found  corroboration on stopping for a few moments when taking pictures from the ne Act

 

7.2  Camera Vehicles

 

1. 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.