VCS SpyCar PCN Claimform - Bristol Airport PCN No. 1

[brassnecked]

Don't think simple will be too happy when he views that video, as it will have to be part of any WS as an exhibit.  Might make him cut and run.

[brassnecked]

They cannot create a Chargeable parking Incident over a stop on a road covered by Road Traffic Act, its not Relevant land.

[brassnecked]

Have a look again at LFI's post#20

[brassnecked]

Those video's are excellent   now not sure what other Site Team think but might be better to hide them from general view especially if you are going to use them in court.  I will hide them for now until other Site team can consider whether they should be on view.

[brassnecked]

Would like to ride an airport access road on an E bike with a gopro and stop to read the sign see what the camera  van bod would do

[brassnecked]

Mediation is not recommended ina parking case, there is nothing to Mediate you either owe them the money or you don't what is there to mediate, they won't accept less than what they asked for on the claim in all probability.

[brassnecked]

Looks like the standard CTRL-C CTRL-V Ambreen WS for No Stopping,   They refer to being Liable for a Parking Charge for NO Stopping, as is allreadl laid down stopping is not parrking.  Plenty to go on with this.

[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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

Submit your WS regardless

 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

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

 

[brassnecked]

In essence and simplistically, tVCS have taken it upon themselves to regard the entire airport and roads within its curtilage as being all Relevant Land for their purposes of if it stops invoice it even roads classed as public highway.  They would invoice an Airbus A320 outside the terminal  unloading passengers if they thought they could.   However as the access roads are just that and subject to byelaws and even potentially Road Traffic Act stopping is a Prohibition under the Byelaws or RTA, so not a Parking Event nor capable of forming any Contract. as an access road cannot be Relevant land.  LFI check that I have that correct please.

[brassnecked]

Definitely Judge lottery,  some of them are not up to speed with the shenanigans and misleading of the couirt by fleecer's LFI's points should be part of any appeal, as in Judge failed to consider the fact POFA not applicable, not relevant land and VCS have no jurisdiction.

[brassnecked]

And yours is a Hackney carriage, so exempt from any VCS alleged contract if you stop to pick up or drop off on that route.