VCS SpyCar PCN Claimform - Bristol Airport PCN No. 1

[dx100uk]

claimants ws sorted

you can put the video up here 

just copy and paste the url

 

dx

[southwestram]

Witness statement draft attached

 

 Have replaced your .docx with a PDF its not wise to use .docx on forum, as personal details appear in the file header's. (BN)

 

Witness Statement Draft One(1).pdf

 

Video of drivers view
 

 

 

Longer video from the Airport entrance
 

 

[brassnecked]

So the second sign is obscured by a sign then trees, and  itsits below a No Right Turn Sign.  Not good for VCS,   I have replaced the docx with a PDF  on Post' #83.

[southwestram]

Thanks for the tidy-up. 

The signage, if it was as they claim, adequate, wouldn't have required a new sign to be placed (more or less in the position of the first sign on the short video). 

I hope the videos will convince them not to bother paying the fee next Thursday. It seems to be a waste of time from my point of view, but maybe Simon fancies throwing £35 into the wind.

[lookinforinfo]

I have read the pages of the contract that you posted. As you are the hirer of the vehicle you have the perfect get out. VCS wrote to the keeper My parking charge who then passed your details back to them. Then what VCS are supposed to do is send you a copy of the original PCN; your contract with my parking charge; the contract where you agree to be responsible for any PCNs and a Notice to Hirer giving you 21 days to pay the charge.

 

I suspect that all they have sent you was a Notice to Driver which notes that they have been in contact with the registered keeper.. By using a modified Notice to Keeper they have given you 28 days to pay the charge  not the regulated 21 days. and as usual that will be all they sent you which is completely different from what they are supposed to do. 

 

Schedule 4 S14 [1] "the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer."

Schedule4 S14[2]

The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; 

 

the exact wording in 13[2] states  "

a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

(b)a copy of the hire agreement; and

(c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement."

 

That should be the first thing on your WS. Any Judge worth his salt will stop the case right there. Nothing VCS has done in getting the correct paperwork to inform you of the breach complies with the Act. 

 

Ambreen's WS is the usual rubbish we see from VCS every time. For instance VCS "has given a contractual licence to enter the private land". Absolute rubbish. The land may be private but long before VCS came on the scene people were able to travel to the airport and their contract has not changed that facility one iota. 

Three things on their No Stopping rule.

It cannot be a contractual clause as a contract cannot be formed by a prohibitory sign.

Despite what Ambreen states  the majority of the No Stopping signs appear to be a right angles to the road rather than facing the motorist.

It is untrue to say that by entering the land the motorist accepts the contract. Once you have gone past the first No Stopping sign the motorist is in a cleft stick. They cannot now indicate that they refuse to accept the "contract" since to do so would mean turning back and leaving the airport.  Thus stopping ,so breaking the contract as well as missing their plane.

 

I have a couple of other things but I have to go out now so will add the others later.

 

 

 

In addition Bristol airport Ltd is not the  landowner. Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan are the actual land owners so there should be a document from them allowing Bristol Airport to sign on their behalf.

 

 

[nightnajjers]

The judge in my (won)  VCS case  made much of the fact that the VCS signs were not illuminated at night

[FTMDave]

I've just had a quick skim through things due to work, but what you've prepared looks superb.  Plan for after work - food, beer from the fridge and read through everything.  More later.

 

Regarding the video "Just disclose it disclose it along with documents/photographs/statements. Once referred to within a statement it becomes a disclosure although it's important to check with the court in advance how it will be shown? (Users own device or court projection)

 

CPR 31.12 may be appropriate in disclosing recorded evidence".

Edited February 17, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[southwestram]

I'm confused that they want to give the impression that the main entry sign is the contract.

Thereon, it states that it is prohibited to stop a vehicle. It fails to differentiate between the car parks and the feeder road. And in the absence of any qualification of the No Stopping statement, it just refers to the entire site.

This is ludicrous, and any compos mentis driver would realise that it cannot be enforced throughout the entire airport. His logical assumption would be that the No Stopping rule applies only where there are visible signs, although this is not made clear at the entrance, where the alleged contract has been struck.

If it were made clear, it would be the simplest win, after showing the video of illegible, concealed, misplaced and missing signs. And that it hasn't been made clear gives sufficient doubt in the mind of the driver to allow a degree of leniency, particularly in the absence of adequate signage.

 

I've emailed the court enquiry service, asking if I can use the wifi to present my evidence, but also stating that I have three laptops available which could be used if not. I've asked if presenting evidence in this fashion will be acceptable.

[brassnecked]

They are trying to create a Parking incident from a prohibition, Simple has lost on that point previously, Your WS with the tweak suggested by LFI will be good, FTM Dave will likely have some more suggestions later.

[FTMDave]

All the research you've put in over the months has been superb.

The WS is 99.99% excellent.

However, if it can be improved by 0.01%, why not?

Obviously the paragraphs need to be numbered in much more detail than they are ATM.

Above your current (4) I would write the title SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.

This is the place to - briefly - describe what happened which led to you getting the ticket.  Yes, I know you've included it in (10), but it needs to go in here briefly too.  In fact, especially here.

Your other ticket is not directly relevant here but I would quickly include it anyway as part of showing VCS up to be the sharks that they are, as you've done several times further on.  Mention that a few seconds after the events contested in this case, that you had to brake sharply as a pedestrian had stepped in front of your vehicle and had you not done so you would probably have murdered the person or at the very least caused life-changing injuries.  VCS are suing you in a separate case no.XXXXX essentially for failing to kill a pedestrian.  You could also say that the two cases could easily have been combined but you suspect that VCS have issued two separate claims in order to claim more legal costs and more interest.

In (5.3) I would rub it in and change "plus PoFA is only relevant for parking" to "plus PoFA is only relevant for parking, not driving along an open road".

 

In this part stick in all of LFI's excellent stuff about the rubbish PCN.

 

In (7) also include proof of postage for your CPR request and thus challenge Ambreen's (29).  Also include that at the time of the request the claim had not been allocated to the small claims track.

In (7.2), again rub it in saying VCS are a member of a different trade association, the IPC.

Obviously include LFI's demolition of the contract.

In your ILLEGAL SIGNAGE section, (8), I don't understand why you write in the third person "he writes in his WS".

In any case, the signage section needs to be split into two.  The lack of PP and the fact the signs are rubbish are two separate matters.  Immediately after (8) stick in a new heading INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE.

 

Right at the end of the section, just before ABUSE OF PROCESS, stick in a bit to show VCS are liars.

 

"It is neither here nor there (the Claimant's Witness Statement para 21) what the IPC considers reasonable or lawful regarding signage or anything else for that matter. What is important is what the law in England & Wales considers as reasonable and lawful.

 

In para 20 of her Witness Statement Ms Arshad has reiterated the above false claims about the signage being reflective and positioned to face oncoming motorists.  Either she has deliberately misled the court, or, perhaps more likely, she has copied and pasted from other Witness Statements and included highly-inaccurate information.  One wonders what else in her Witness Statement is inaccurate.

 

Ms Arshad is being somewhat disingenuous when she says she "may" be unable to attend the hearing.  I have researched scores of VCS court cases and I cannot find even one where Ms Arshad has ever appeared in court.  The same goes for Mr Mohammed Wali, the other paralegal employed by VCS to write witness statements.  This is particularly remarkable as hearings were by telephone or on-line during the COVID pandemic, with no travelling involved.  It seems that under no circumstances are VCS willing to have their witness statement authors questioned in court".

 

(9.3) has to go completely.  The government are being legally challenged by the fleecers on this point.

 

Personally I would trim the paragraphs preceding (9.3).  There is a lot of waffle.

 

That's it!

Edited February 17, 2023 by FTMDave
Typo

[Nicky Boy]

Why not just download the video to the laptop, so WiFi isn't needed?

[southwestram]

 

Yes. I think that's the way to go. Then there'll be no problem with signal drop or anything.

 

@FTMDave  - that's above and beyond. Thank you so much for the time you spent going through this and making suggestions. I'll follow your advice and repost the amended WS

 

@LFI

I don't have a contract with myparkingcharge - I have one with the taxi company that I work for, but even then, I can't remember signing or being given anything relating to it.

It was VCS that sent me the MPC letter with the WS.

I know that the owners of the taxi company will have responded to the NTK, and I wonder if perhaps that was the origin of the MPC letter.

Apparently I was 'the driver what was driving the vehicle'

Edited February 17, 2023 by southwestram

[dx100uk]

i think you'll find @lookinforinfo means the hire company not my parking charge.

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you dx I did mean the hire company.

  I can assure you Westram that you did sign a contract when hiring the car as well as signing a statement of liability. Had you not done so VCS would be pursuing the cab hire company not you.

 

Thus the fact that they have not sent you all the required documents  when they sent you the wrong PCN means that YOU CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CHARGE.  GAME OVER. YOU HAVE WON.

It is a major mistake by VCS from which they cannot recover. 

 

i am repeating the paragraph I wrote in my previous post-

Schedule 4 S14 [1] "the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer."

Schedule4 S14[2]

The conditions are that—

(a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;

(b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed; 

 

VCS did not send you the required documents. Plus they should have sent you a Notice to Hirer not a notice to Driver. The reason is that with a NTHirer they only need to give you 21 days to pay. With a NTDriver they have to give you 28 days. 

 

So VCS have failed to conditions necessary for them to pursue you, the hirer. Please read this post until you understand it and do not use your age as a reason for not understanding it. I am 20 years older than you and I get it.

 

 

[southwestram]

That's fantastic, and will be the first point on my revised WS. My only concern is that it will be too late to submit the WS if the court insist on their original date, but the court fee isn't due to be paid until Thursday 23rd.

However I think that this, combined with the ramped-up critical review of their copy and paste WS, with particular reference to their lying regarding the signage at Bristol Airport and my videos which refute their assurances re compliance totally will give me a real advantage.

I'm going to suggest to them that they stop wasting our time, and don't even bother to lodge the fee, bearing in mind your trump card

[brassnecked]

Submit your WS regardless

 

[lookinforinfo]

You realise that the situation  with your other PCN is the same if it is still outstanding.

[southwestram]

Here is the WS. redacted where it might identify me. Highlights in yellow will be completed once I have compiled a list of exhibits and numbered them

Could the experts please give it a scan? I've also left blank a couple of sections where, for instance, I don't know the case reference for the Paplow case, and don't know the Act to which LFI referred with regards to the Notice to Hirer, not Notice to Driver.

Final Draft of WS - Redacted.pdf

 

@lookinforinfo You wrote, referring to Schedule 4 S 14 and 13(2)

 What do they refer to please?

[southwestram]

On 18/02/2023 at 17:07, lookinforinfo said:

You realise that the situation  with your other PCN is the same if it is still outstanding.

I think if the information that you provided sways the judge (as indeed it should), then VCS would be stupid to then pursue the second charge having done the same thing with that one

[FTMDave]

98% of what you've prepared is superb.

 

I see you've chosen not to take on board the points I made in my previous post.  I think due to this certain sections could be confusing for a judge and to leave in points that the fleecers could easily demolish isn't a good idea.  But it's your case.

 

LFI will have been writing about Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.  It's incorrect to talk about a breach.  Instead of BREACH OF THE _________________ an appropriate title would be NO KEEPER LIABILITY (1) and instead of RELEVANT LAND it should be NO KEEPER LIABILITY (2).

 

[southwestram]

My Apologies. I am now including the points you made. One question though. Where you have said that I should use NO KEEPER LIABILITY 1&2 - should I use NO DRIVER or NO HIRER LIABILTY instead, to differentiate between myself and the owner of the vehicle?

[FTMDave]

Well spotted!  Yes, make it NO HIRER LIABILITY (1) and NO HIRER LIABILITY (2).

 

If you can, get another version up this evening, because there are a couple fo points to move around, but IMO you're nearly there.

[southwestram]

Okay. Here is the (hopefully) final draft. (redacted)

If everyone is happy with it, I'll print it and email to VCS together with a snotty covering letter, and hand deliver it to the court tomorrow.

Final Draft of WS - Redacted.pdf

[FTMDave]

I'll have a good look through everything shortly, but in the meantime, remember that all the paragraphs need to be numbered.

 

I was going to whittle on about the subject field of an e-mail to the court but see you're going to hand deliver!

[southwestram]

Thanks. I was planning to number it once we've finalised the order of it all, when I fill in the highlighted parts with the Exhibit references and clean up the redacted parts.

I'm hoping that VCS are smart enough to move onto their next patsy, but in a way, I'd like for there to be a judgement that eviscerates them for their dodgy practices. If so, I might go to the Mail, so that people are forewarned against this. (Would be sure to mention this site, naturally!)