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

[FTMDave]

Was it headed Letter Before Claim or Letter of Claim or Letter Before Action or similar?

[FTMDave]

We have two VCS airport no stopping threads where they are threatening motorists with court for stopping at ...

 

... a zebra crossing.  I kid you not.  In one of the cases there's also a photo of a pedestrian on the zebra crossing.  That's the kind of vermin you're dealing with. 

[FTMDave]

You don't have to do anything.

 

Simple Simon has to pay the hearing fee by 27 May (a Friday), or his case will be chucked in the bin.  Make a note in your diary to phone the court on Monday 30 to see if VCS have done this.

Edited February 17, 2022 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

@JimmySpices  You keep PMing me, but as I've told you "please post for help on your thread, as I'm on holiday out of the EU at the moment and only log on when I get free WiFi in my accommodation".

 

You're already three days late with your WS.  The courts allow some leeway for Litigants in Person but the WS needs to be sent to the court today.  If you post the vital information you're sending just to me, on your thread instead, then the other regulars will be able to help.

[FTMDave]

@JimmySpiceshave you sent the WS yet?

 

If not, I have some free time now this afternoon and could help out.  The courts close at 4pm so sending it any time till then is OK.

[FTMDave]

OK, will get on to it now.

 

Your idea about hand delivery is a good one, however you can e-mail them too.

[FTMDave]

Well, this is proving easy to "correct" given we're all standing on Flamjam's giant shoulders!

 

I realise time is of the essence, so a first action is to stick in a new paragraph 4.4 to include the point that LFI brought up in post 25 -

 

4.4  PoFA Schedule 4 s9 [2] states the Notice must -

and in s9 [2][f] it state -

 

"(f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

 

(i the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met]  have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid."

 

Yet these sections are omitted from the Claimant's PCN meaning it is invalid under POFA and cannot create keeper liability.  The Claimant should be suing the driver.  They are suing the wrong person.

 

Onto Flamjam's ABUSE OF PROCESS section is a minute.  Flamjam's work was superb - but things have moved on since with the government Code of Practice so this bit needs to be updated.  More in a mo.

[FTMDave]

Between your current sections 7 and 8 stick in a new one -

 

GRACE PERIOD

 

8.  Under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and subsequent publication of the government Code of Practice, there is a 15-minute grace/consideration period (exhibit XXX).  Even the private parking companies' trade associations allow a 10-minute grace period.  The vehicle was stopped for all of 40 seconds, well within these grace periods. 

 

8.1.  Stopping the car with the engine running for all of 40 seconds to genuinely ask for directions is "de minimis".

 

I've refereed to an exhibit here, make space for an exhibit with bits from the government's Code of Practice.  More later.

[FTMDave]

ABUSE OF PROCESS section.

 

Cut out paragraphs 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13 as they are outdated and/or in the wrong order.  Instead start with -

 

8.   The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”.  No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule16.4.

 

8.1  The government Code of Practice section 9, published according to the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, is crystal clear -

 

"9. Escalation of costs

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

 

8.2  Even before this recent Act, the law was clear that the maximum sum that could be claimed was that of the PCN.  PoFA 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” which in this case is £100.

8.2 Unless the Claimant can clearly demonstrate how these alleged additional costs have been incurred this would appear to be an attempt at double recover

 

8.3  The Claimant is indeed attempting triple recovery.  In a letter to me dated 17/02/2022, they state they will ask the court for £220 extra costs although they know full well that legal costs are capped at £50.  I look forward to hearing their advocate's argument for requesting this sum (Exhibit A).

 

Keep current paragraphs 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10.

[FTMDave]

If you want a laugh - and to plant in the judge's mind that they are liars - stick in a new paragraph after current 8.10.

 

8.11  Mohammed Wali is being rather disingenuous (Claimant's Witness Statement para 40) when he says he "may" not be able to attend the hearing.  I have researched scores of VCS cases and neither he nor Ms Ambreen Arshad (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.

 

8.12  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.

 

Sort out these bits of the government CoP into an exhibit -

 

Code of Practice

 

9.  Escalation of Costs

 

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

 

Table B.1

 

Controlled land open to the general public for parking

 

Type of Land - Restricted

 

Tied to an event

 

Scale of premises - n/a

Minimum Consideration Period (mins) - 5

Grace Period (mins) - 10

Entrance - Sign to display
Specify permitted use                    
 

Sort out my destruction of the numbering in the last sections.

 

And it should be ready to go.

 

Normally we don't recommend the use of e-mail but time is of the essence.  Quote the case number and the parties in the subject heading and e-mail to the court and copy to VCS.  Request receipt of course

 

If you're a blood-minded git like me then send the WS another ten times to VCS by e-mail to take the wee wee about them pretending to have not received WSs

[FTMDave]

8 minutes ago, JimmySpices said:

email also drop off a hard copy.

 

8 minutes ago, JimmySpices said:

I'll email VCS and call them to see if they've received it as well.

Great idea!  Be sure to record the call.  It'd be superb if they admitted on the phone to receiving it then later tried to lie in court!

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, JimmySpices said:

FTMDave - with regards your post 68 above, unfortunately I had already gone through the VCS online appeals and therefore naively declared myself, which I wrote in my post 26'ish.

Yes, I realise this, the attempt to challenge them on POFA was because POFA is supposed to deal with private car parks, not a flipping public road under the jurisdiction of the council and the police.  As you say though it probably wouldn't have made much difference as you'd outed yourself as the driver.

 

Well done in getting the confirmation from Wali.  It'd be a laugh now if in court VCS claimed not to have received it!

[FTMDave]

So we have a break from Ambreen for once, only to be entertained by Wally, he of the feather fame, who has now moved on to wittering on about Buckingham Palace.

 

I'm at work now but will look forward to having a laugh at whatever Wally has come up with in about three hours' time.  He never disappoints.

[FTMDave]

There's nothing to worry about in Wally's WS, it's the usual warbling on & on & on, and then on some more, about there being loads of signs.

 

This bit caught my eye: 31. Furthermore, the signage on the approach road is reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists

 

I've never been to JLA, but I was at East Midlands Airport in August, and at a guestimate 50% of Simple Simon's signs were placed parallel to the road, i.e. not to face oncoming motorists.

 

Yesterday I booked another EMA flight for April, the flight gets in nice and early at 11:15 on a day when I have nowt really to do, so I think my phone will be taking lots of pix for future use.

[FTMDave]

I like Waffler Wally.  Sums him up perfectly.  We should stick with that. 

 

It would be great if you could get photos to embarrass Simon at JLA, Brassnecked.

[FTMDave]

I am not sure LFI, but I think accepting a WS or a SWS after the court deadline is up to the judge's discretion.

[FTMDave]

To put it mildly ...

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory! 

[FTMDave]

Kudos also to the solicitor for being honest.

 

Which begs the question of why VCS didn't simply discontinue instead of paying a solicitor to go to court for, er, nothing.

 

Well, we know the reason really.  Rather two reasons.

 

Greed and stupidity.

 

Take that Simon!

[FTMDave]

I don't begrudge him, given it was Simple Simon having to put his hand in his pocket!