VCS SpyCar PCN Claimform - Bristol Airport PCN No. 1

[FTMDave]

What you've prepared is really, really good.  Just a couple of tweaks.

 

Just to make it crystal clear for the judge, change -

 

My phone was out of its cradle, and I could not answer
the call hands-free otherwise. I pulled over when it was safe to do so and replaced the phone, and
answered the call, then pulled off again.

 

to

 

My phone was out of its cradle, and I could not answer
the call hands-free otherwise. I pulled over when it was safe to do so and replaced the phone, and
answered the call, then pulled off again..  This is the "offence" that I am being sued for in this case.

 

There is a mistake at the start of the ILLEGAL SIGNAGE section.  PAPLOC means pre-action protocol and has nothing to do with what you're arguing.  So change the first lines -

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

In the case of XXXXXXXXXX (Insert PAPLOC reference) he states in his WS:

“8. After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D) in
which I requested copies of the claimant’s Planning Permission for the signage at the site in
question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself with the relevant local
authority I found out that No planning permission had been sought or granted for said signs,
therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road
Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.”

 

With reference to my appeal against the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice, VCS stated the
following:

 

to

 

ILLEGAL SIGNAGE

 

After receiving the claim form I subsequently submitted my CPR 31.14 request (Exhibit D) in
which I requested copies of the claimant’s planning permission for the signage at the site in
question. The claimant failed to produce any, and after checking this myself with the relevant local
authority I found out that no planning permission had been sought or granted for said signs,
therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road
Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.

 

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE

 

With reference to my appeal against the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice, VCS stated the
following:

 

This part -

 

Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: ͞ The Parking operator
must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as
originally issued

 

has to go completely as it is the part of the CoP that the fleecers are legally challenging.

 

The rest is great.

 

If you can, delay the printing and e-mailing till tomorrow morning as there are quite a few Night Owls on CAG who might have last-minute contacts. 

 

The court will close at 4pm tomorrow.  While you're there, you might as well ask about how to show your video.

[southwestram]

22 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

In the case of XXXXXXXXXX (Insert PAPLOC reference) he states in his WS:

It was the Alaska 101 case reference that I was hoping to refer to as I have not carried out the checks to which he refers.

[FTMDave]

We've had several Bristol airport cases since Alaska101 and there's never been any planning permission.  You did ask for PP with the CPR request and they didn't send it. 

[southwestram]

Okay - I believe we're done. This is the final WS.

I still need to number the points, and then provide an Exhibit list and then update this, but it should give you an idea of where we are. Please feel free to make comments as you see fit

Final WS Redacted Version.pdf

[FTMDave]

Like the way you've resolved the ILLEGAL SIGNAGE issue.

 

Looks good to go to me.

[brassnecked]

Looks excellent, well structured, and illustrates well the shenanigans VCS employ, second PCN should be void on safety grounds alone a pedestrian was running at your vehicle.  Without going through the thread, are they just claiming for the first PCN?  If so they might be stupid enough to try to claim for second even if this claim kicked out.

[Nicky Boy]

southwestram,

 

Under your  No Hirer Liability (1) section,

 

I presume they also didn't send...

 

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?

 

You haven't mentioned it...

 

Maybe highlight that absoulutely none of the documents arrived by using bullet points,...

(a)...

(b)...

(c)...

Edited February 20, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, brassnecked said:

Without going through the thread, are they just claiming for the first PCN?  If so they might be stupid enough to try to claim for second even if this claim kicked out.

They have a separate court claim for the second invoice BN.

[brassnecked]

So this one gets kicked out the other one should be with similar WS and a quotation of this case number  beginning that Claim is 99% identical except a pedestrian was running at the car.

[southwestram]

The paper trail stopped with regards to the second PCN quite a while ago, but I wonder if they're holding it in reserve in case the court took a dim view of two charges one minute apart.

As far as whether or not it could even be attempted, it depends on the result of the first. If the court agree that there was an abuse of process in that I was not sent the correct paperwork at the very beginning, then the same verdict would be waiting for them regarding the second allegation.

There are of course many other reasons why the judge may decide against them, and the primary reason is the lack of adequate signage at that end of the site.

I am in touch with the people that got into the car at the airport and have a statement from the person involved, thanking me for not running them over.

I have now delivered the WS to the court, and will email VCS with the good news. If they have any sense, they'll call off their proxy solicitor and fail to pay the fee. But of course, we will only know after Thursday

[FTMDave]

What was the last paperwork you got for PCN 2?

 

Did you ever get a Directions Questionnaire from the court?

[southwestram]

The last thing I received was a letter dated 24/08/2022 which stated that ELMS are no longer acting in this case and that it is now a defended case.

With regards to charge number one, I later received the instruction to submit a DQ for both charges, which I did, and was recorded on MCOL as having been received. Since then, it has been transferred to Taunton, and that's where it ends.....so far

This is the cover letter to the email containing the WS and Exhibits.

Comments, advice and suggestions always welcome before I send it at 2pm

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached the Witness Statement plus Exhibits for the above case.

I have researched in great depth, and strongly believe that I will achieve a positive result in this case, and that you are not entitled to claim anything against me. 

If you really feel that you want to have your dirty washing aired in the daylight and air of a courtroom, I suppose it only remains for you to pay the fee and await our meeting in court.

I must warn you though, that you have failed in a fundamental way, to send me the correct paperwork. Too late to amend that mistake now of course, and of course, also too late to pursue your other spurious claim XXXXXXX either.

You'll see that I have included references in the WS to a couple of YouTube videos that I videoed on a contemporaneous visit to Bristol Airport which clearly show the parlous state of the signage along the feeder road. I recommend that you request a full audit of the signs. In fact, take them all down, apply for planning permission, and if granted, erect and install them properly.

You stated yourselves, without having checked, possibly since your photos were taken four years ago, that they were still in existence and still 'exceeded industry standards'.

I can give you a hint here. They don't.

I'll await your decision regarding this case, and of course the other PCN that you chancers decided to send me. Either that or we will meet in court. 

Warm Regards

[brassnecked]

I would send it but wait to see what other's think, bear in mind another VCS shenanigan, along with the egregious scareathon £220 extra costa they can't actually claim, is a supplementary WS  they have used in a few cases now, that uses some old Victorian cases to try to go behind Byelaws, with railway stations and access for hotel porter's and taxi (hansom cab) drivers.

[southwestram]

I will wait until 4 then. Give people a chance to put in their two penneth worth before it goes.

 

My default status would be to keep it professional and civil, but the temptation to stick a knee in their groin is strong.

[brassnecked]

With Simon the urge to give him more than a slight tolchok is strong

 

[AndyOrch]

I wouldn't, no need to attach a cover note to exchange of statements/evidence......screams please do not proceed. 

 

Its like submitting a second defence.....will go in the bin.

 

Andy

[southwestram]

Alternative;

Dear Sirs,

Please find attached the Witness Statement plus Exhibits for the above case. References to YouTube videos within the Witness Statement may be viewed online. They will also be available to view during the hearing.

Yours Sincerely

[AndyOrch]

Far more professional.

[FTMDave]

Simple Simon will not like the reference to videos available on-line to the general public

[southwestram]

57 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Far more professional.

Yeah. Agreed. That's the one I sent. 

[southwestram]

I enquired today, and the court fee has been paid. I can't see why they would want to do that, but it isn't my 35 quid.

 

[FTMDave]

Because they are arrogant and stupid, and presumably and sadly enough motorists give in at the various stages of their horrible "procedure" that they think it's worth their while.  It's just a numbers game to these vile companies.

 

 

[southwestram]

We now have less than two weeks to go until the hearing. 

Two things - the MCOL website has not been updated. Firstly, as you know, I was told that the claimant had paid the fee on time when I called. And I had submitted my WS on the morning of the 17th February - later than the deadline of the 3rd January. None of those points have been updated - not the paying of the fee, nor the lodging of the claimant's or my WS. Is this normal?

The second thing is that in my defence, I refer to the Bristol Airport Byelaws. I have searched and searched and can't find any reference to anything upon which I'm basing this point. Could anybody point me in the right direction by posting a link to the relevant Byelaws please? Otherwise, I'm not going to look very credible if the best I can offer is a Gallic shrug when quizzed on them 

[FTMDave]

Don't worry about MCOL.  Once the case gets transferred to your local court its work is done.

 

Bristol Airport bye-laws are another matter.  Let's all do some homework over the weekend.

 

 

[FTMDave]

https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/media/4vqbdkcf/bristol-airport-byelaws-11062018.pdf