Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  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. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. 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. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VCS Spycar PCN Claimform - no stopping - JLA - Liverpool ***Claim Dismissed*** NO CONTRACT SINCE 2015!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 445 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'm still getting used to navigating this site, so I don't know exactly where to look. However, I have now found some details and is the following ok as a defence? Not too short or too long. 

 

1)It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. The Claimant are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts nor to bring a claim for trespass.


 2) The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to the Claimant or the landowner


 3) The signage does not comply with your ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract
The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  

 

It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

use our enhanced google search box on this very page (if on a mobile select desktop view).

 

^^ clickme

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its defence

 

check that is what others have used in the threads i've pointed too.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

read this thread

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Less is more at this stage giving too much info allows simple to concoct lies or some convoluted argument using arcane irrelevant cases to back it up to counter what you entered specifically.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all, I'm going to submit the following tomorrow (2nd Dec), unless you guys disagree.

 

1)It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. The Claimant are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offer contracts.
2) The signage does not comply with the ATA Code of Practice and was not sufficiently prominent to create any contract. 
3) The land is subject to own byelaws and signage is prohibitive so there can be no monies due as a result of either a contractual charge or as a result of a breach of contract.
The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jimmy see flamjams latest post.

 

use that.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another couple of questions please. Is it worth me writing a letter to Liverpool JLA - asking for the PCN to be cancelled? I read parts of the contract between VCS and Liverpool JLA (from Flamjam's post) and the airport is on a commission for PCN payments - upto 35% if more than 16 PCN's per day. 

 

Also Liverpool JLA isn't the landowner - so doesn't that make the whole claim invalid on this single overriding factor, as only the landowner can make a claim? "As a matter of law" said all the judges in their transcript. Can't the judges dismiss the claim based on the defendant's/claimants witness statement, rather than it reach a court hearing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

no dont write follow the normal course.

 

the rest is for your ws if it ever goes that far.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Land owner covers quite a few variations. There is the company or person that is the freeholder of the land then there is the company or person who has leased the land from the freeholder. And possibly the leaseholder will lease it on to another.

 

Some judges will expect there to be a link from the freeholder to the leaseholder allowing the leaseholder to make such alterations to the land such as parking rights.

 

other judges will assume that if the leaseholder has being added a  parking contract a number of years before that there is no need for a link. Known as judges lottery.

 

What you can do is put in this case Liverpool airport ltd to strict proof that the land owner has allowed the parking contract.

Edited by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Uf you mean your defence. Go get and copy here, the defence flamjam has at the end of his thread now.

 

you should use that.

inho

 

DX

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Guys,

I can't find the answer to this question in the various threads. With regards to the Court allocation form received - do we say NO to mediation, as this is a PCN? For me there's nothing to mediate. VCS now want £185 (down from the initial court claim of £245) and I don't want pay anything at all, not even £1. It would be a waste of a mediation session.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct!!

 

3 copies!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

JimmySpices I am sorry I missed your question about post 36. Had it not been ok one of the site team would have jumped in.

 

Liverpool airport may be the land owners from the point of view of being sub lease holders but  the freeholders were a pension fund in Canada and the lease  holders are the Peel Group and  Ancala LLP who both hold 45% and  Liverpool City Council have 10%.  But that may have changed now and the Peel Group may be part owners. 

 

But there still has to be a link in the form of  a permission from the Peel Group  that allows the airport to take on contracts on their own right  So far that has not been shown on any of their contracts.

 

Interestingly though, yours is the first contract I have seen where it shows the 2013 agreement when VCS were complying with the BPA COP  with the addition of  a change to complying with the IPC  COP added in 2015. 

 

 

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Good luck on the day. VCS rarely win these cases for a variety of reasons. Please post up there Witness Statement when you get it plus start one of your own. 

Do not send yours off until you have seen theirs and we have added our comments to give you the best chance of winning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Good tip. There was another thread I read here saying the max they can claim is their original amount of £245 and no more. Is that correct?

If they send someone from Sheffield to Slough is about 200 miles or from use local law firm - how does that make economical for them? They've already sent 13 letters from DCA's and 2 other legal letters from ELMS and their own litigation dept, court claim. Can't get my head around their thought process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those threatening letter's offering to settle, or they will add "50 or whatever in legal fees if they win are just frightener's they cannot ask for such in Small Claims track, and Wali or the other one won't turn up as they wouldn't like to be cross examined on their WS.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the confirmation. I don't want to sound smart (otherwise I wouldn't be here!) but if they demand further fictitious additional costs, isn't that a tort of law and could I write to the Law Society to report them or at least show the judge their illegal behaviour? I haven't received any of these further threatening demands yet, but am expecting it based on other peoples threads here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignore them.

it's all a long and tried and tested series of threats and harassment and intimidation to make you give in and get mugged by wetting yourself.

 

std practice carefully detailed in just about every VCS thread here already.

 

await the N157 and the orders/directions from your designated court, they all deal with these cases in a few different ways.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...