VCS Spycar PCN Claimform - no stopping John Lennon Airport Liverpool

[dx100uk]

doesnt matter if they don't simon will try it on.

 

no stopping is part of the byelaws or an old traffic regulation order . neither of which simon is contracted to enforce though hell try.

the signs also do not mention vcs but funny enough the airport authority.

 

the are 100's of threads here on no stopping

 

shame you appealed ...next time dont.

[JimmySpices]

Hi Guys,

I need to submit my defense for the MCOL due date is 3rd Dec. I don't know if I need to write so much of the attached and whether the details is required afterwards. Please let me know, if the below is ok to submit.

Thanks

 

************************

I arrived at Liverpool John Lennon airport around 5:30am on 30^th July 2019, to park my car in a prebooked car park, called Imagine Parking, located approx 150 metres from the entrance of the airport building.

 

I paid for the parking and flights in May 2019 (receipt attached) for our annual family holiday to Italy.

 

On entering the airport premises I asked my family to look for any signs to the Imagine Parking, as it was dark and the signs were very difficult to read. Unfortunately neither the satnav nor anyone in the car could find the Imagine Parking.

 

After exiting the airport premises following the one way system and then re-entered it again. Again we couldn’t find our car park and I decided to drive in to the pickup/dropoff  car park to collect my thoughts.

 

I double checked the address and postcode and had entered the correct information and read the directions again. I paid the £3 exit fee and drove carefully, this time using my son’s mobile phone satnav, but again the satnav said we had reached our destination,

 

I noticed the entrance to a car park off the roundabout shown in the photo, thinking it must be our car park, however just as I was entering I couldn’t see any signs saying “Imagine Car Park.” I also noticed that if I drove further into this car park, then I would be driving towards barriers to the car park and there was also a raised kerb dividing the entry and exit for the entrance to this car park,

 

I stopped in order to avoid getting trapped, this was for a few seconds and as I was about to drive away, I noticed a couple of cabin crew walking towards my car and I asked my son to jump out with the Imagine car park document to ask for directions, but they were unable to help, so my son sat back in the car and just I was about to move, I noticed a minibus with “Imagine Parking” written on the side and managed to follow it to their car park about 100 metres away.

 

As can be seen from the timestamp on the photo’s, it was 5:58am and our flight gate was due to close at 7am (flight was 7:30am) and I was feeling anxious. The timestamp also shows I had stopped to avoid going into the wrong car park at 5:57:23 and followed the van at 5:58:07, therefore a total of 44 seconds. I didn’t look towards gaining any advantage by driving towards the wrong car park.

 

Please note the postcode for the Imagine car park and the airport are the same, the driving instructions, which I had read prior to leaving and at the “dropoff/pickup” car park seemed to make sense, but I still couldn’t see the car park. Normally there would be signs to any private car parks.

 

I made an appeal to VCS Ltd and on their online appeal form, there is a drop-down option for mitigating circumstances “to ask for directions,” however, this seems to be bogus and covert practice to get drivers to reveal their own identity only, it is not a legitimate option for mitigating circumstances.

 

I provided VCS with all the above information with car parking receipt (with dates) for Imagine Parking and the boarding pass for the flight. I even explained the above to the first company debt collecting agency. As can be seen from the above, I tried to get VCS Ltd to cancel the PCN with sufficient mitigating circumstances, to no avail.

 

I’m hoping the mitigating circumstances for turning my car away from the wrong car park for 44 seconds are sufficient to dismiss this claim, however if the courts are minded to the claim of a “breach of contract,” then I would like to contest it on the following basis:-

 

I did not enter a contract knowingly and no terms were offered on arrival. I still haven’t seen the “contract” after 2.5 years.

 

It was dark/dusk and the signs are not lit. Even if it was light, how can a driver read a contract written on the side of a road? How would anybody know they’re entering to a contract by driving on a road to an airport?

 

As a matter of law, only the landowners can issue legal proceedings in their own name, VCS Ltd are not the landowners, merely agents with their own tort of law procedures for parking.

 

If any damages did occur for manoeuvring a car for 44 seconds, then how is the value of £160 reached?

 

A parking charge notice was issued, however I did not park anywhere on the roads.

 

The roads are governed by the highways byelaws and therefore VCS have no authority for these roads.

 

I have received 13 letters from 4 different debt collecting agencies for a tort of law claim.

 

I request this case be totally dismissed.

Edited November 29, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[dx100uk]

good grief no!! thats might all be for your WS IFIFIF the claim ever goes that far

as already advised a few times.........................

 

there are 100's of no stopping

threads here on CAG

 

use our enhanced google search on this same page and search for the above words.

 

put up your take on our 3 -5 line generic non descripto defence you'll see

 

 

 

[JimmySpices]

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.

[dx100uk]

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

 

Programmable Search Engine

CSE.GOOGLE.COM

^^ clickme

[JimmySpices]

Thanks for the search tool.

 

Is my defense sufficient for the MCOL please?

[dx100uk]

its defence

 

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

[JimmySpices]

I believe it is, but it's not identical wording. It seems fairly generic to me, which seems to be the main requirement on the threads.

[dx100uk]

read this thread

 

 

[brassnecked]

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.

[JimmySpices]

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.

[dx100uk]

jimmy see flamjams latest post.

 

use that.

 

dx

[JimmySpices]

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?

[dx100uk]

no dont write follow the normal course.

 

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

 

dx

[lookinforinfo]

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 December 1, 2021 by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx

[JimmySpices]

Thanks for the clarification guys. LookingforInfo - can you vaildate my post 36 please?

[dx100uk]

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

[JimmySpices]

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

[dx100uk]

correct!!

 

3 copies!!

[lookinforinfo]

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 December 16, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[JimmySpices]

Hi Guys,

Just a quick update. I completed the N180 and received a letter from CCBC (mcol) on Jan 17th with instructions to my local court in Slough

to provide directions for a hearing. Just waiting for a hearing date/directions. Will you keep you informed.

Thanks

[lookinforinfo]

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.

[JimmySpices]

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.

[brassnecked]

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.

[JimmySpices]

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.