I was assuming that as it was a railway station and it has by-laws that: " The use of this car park may be regulated by traffic orders or bye laws under...." was saying as much. The whole pcn is worse than laughable, I am surprised that even they can get as daft as they have been. I suppose I can live with hope they forward me the Chegue for £170. for doing absolutely nothing that I asked for.

I was more interested in the fact that they admit that the site is covered by the railway bye laws which as I understand it "not relevant land" Not that it stopped them trying it on with me. The PCN was for "maximum stay exceeded" , The best bit is, there is no mention of a time limit and how long one may stay (if you choose to Park, which I did not) on any of the signage. They have done the usual trick of using the entry and exit times as a parking period.

NCP.pdf

Little bit of and update and some extra interesting Singage at the Railway Station. Snotty letter sent, they answered with the amusing I "failed to adequatley specify why you dispute the PCN and why you are not liable for the outstanding". They seemed to be worried that I am worried and may not be able to pay, but rather helpfully the client may accept affordable monthly rates. Anyway, whilst checking the signs in the infected railway car park I found this snippet. NCP 8 Traffic Orders and by laws The use of this car park may be regulated by traffic orders or bye laws under which a penalty may be payable for failing to comply with these terms or the requirements of the relevant order or bye law. In such circumstances , seperate notices specifying the relevant order or bye law will be displayed in the car park and we reserve to right to take enforcemant action against you (including through court proceedings) for breach of such orders or bye laws. There are no seperate notices.

Rather helpfully BW sent a reminder of the date of expiry of the LBC and gave the final opportunity of taking advantage of them re offering a Pre-approved personal payment solution/ monthly plan they have created. Even more helpfully they added another 5 days to accept the Payment plan and avoid a Court claim. The snotty letter crossed in the post with the last (eighth) letter from NCP or the accomplice.

Seems to be a popular trait lately, This is what they sent me on the letter of claim. " if, on expiry of this letter, your case proceeds to a County Court claim without further notice, you will incur additional costs and fees that would increase the balance"

NB "So, if a Judge throws one argument out, there are several more to make:". Indeed, with the forums assistance, in my case several more arguements were made. In the end the Judge dismissed the claim on the poor location of the the entry sign and the fact that is was not illuminated. T7 it is amazing how much time and effort can be put into minor planning contraventions on the basis of a letter of complaint from nosy neighbours. but erect signs willy nilly on car parks and the local council could not care less.

I had a case with VCS in January. Part of the defence was that there was not planning permission for signs on the site. The judge dismissed that part of the defence saying, "that it had been long held that no planning permission for signs was not a defence"? the judge did not elaborate further. I was a bit mystified by that statement

After the usual threats they finally sent ` letter of claim. Snotty letter time.

Thank you for you advice. As I think you are correct the DVLA complaint is pretty much a done deal. I think that a few lines to the Airport would not go amiss. The area in question is definitley an area of road that the public have access to, the parking area is defin separate from the access road. As you say It might stir up a bit of trouble for VCS which would be very much to my liking.

Thanks for that which clears it up somewhat . In my case it was a no stopping incident on the Airport access road subject to the RTA and apparently not controlled by VCS.

As a result of my run in with VCS over the no stopping event at Southend Airport. I wrote to DVLA and asked them why they are giving out driver details to the likes of VCS when an alleged contravention took place on non relevant land. I was not happy with the answer provided, which was, you won the case so what are you complaining about. They advised that VCS had reasonable cause to make a request for keeper details. On 8th Feb this year I replied and said they may have had reasonable cause but as I saw things they did not have authority to make that request, as Southend Airport is not relevant land. No answer came back until I chased them last week, the following is the reply received this week: “It would seem that vehicle parking or waiting is no longer covered within the most recent published byelaws issued by London Southend Airport in 2021. This would therefore enable keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to be used by the car parking management company Vehicle Control Services Ltd. The relevant section can be found in section 5 of the byelaws which provides information on prohibited acts on part of the airport to which the road traffic enactments do not apply. These can be accessed via the following link:- SLSA Airsid21042713230 (londonsouthendairport.com) The DVLA cannot determine liability when dealing with requests for information. Under the regulations, the DVLA discloses keeper information as a first point of contact to help investigate where liability might lie”. I would appreciate your thoughts before I reply. As I see it what is in the byelaws is immaterial, the fact remains that Airport land is not relevant?

As far as I can determine now, you do not need the Courts permission to use a lay representative. when researching I read some where that you need permission, I can't find that rule anywhere now. When I sent my ws. I asked the courts permission to have a lay representative. On actually being in Court the Judge was unaware (or did not mention it) that I had requested a lay representative. I am almost sure it has to be allowed. Prestton could just phone the Court and make certain that is the case,

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

Practical Direction 27A Small Claims Track (2) a lay representative means any other person. 3.2 (1) A party may present his own case at a hearing or a lawyer or lay representative may present it for him. (2) The Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 provides that a lay representative may not exercise any right of audience:– (a) where his client does not attend the hearing; (b) at any stage after judgment; or (c) on any appeal brought against any decision made by the district judge in the proceedings. (3) However the court, exercising its general discretion to hear anybody, may hear a lay representative even in circumstances excluded by the Order.

You can appear with the defendant as a Lay Representative and speak for them with the judges approval. I just did this. On returning the WS I asked that my partner attend with me and appear as Lay Representative. On the day the judge asked my partner if that was ok. She asked the Claimant's solicitor if she was ok with that. All agreed and my partner presented the whole case on my behalf. A McKenzie friend is different to Lay representative

I look forward to more Red, waste paper and menacing drivel. Bunch of Parasitc Chumps.

Thank you for the replies. No, not contacted or appealed them. I know better than that thanks to being here. Out of time by weeks. The Notice says Chelmsford station Disabled bays but the photos are the vehicle on the road not in bay. It is not desigfnated as a drop off area. Railways are covered by Bye laws are they not? No mention of POFA. The vehicle was never parked, the driver did not exit the vehicle. Got to admire them for allowing an appeal to themselves lol .

Can"t belive this, Just got rid of the VCS parasites, now this one. 20 years with no parking problems and then two in a row? unbelievable! Is there anything right with this one? 1 Date of the infringement 25th Sept 2022 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 03 Jan 2023 3 Date received 5th Jan 2023 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 No 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? yes ,but not in a disabled bay as alleged 6 Have you appealed? No 7 Who is the parking company? NCP 8. Where exactly Chelmsford Railway station. drop off /collect area For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. www.gaparking.co.uk/pcn or rather nicely for them NCP Ltd pcn ntk.pdf

well done. Good to know, less revenue for the parasites.

Hello The highways dept are just as useless as the council in my experience. I think I will not continue as I have a few other bigger problems to deal with at the moment. I will chalk up a success in this case and at least I know that I cost them a reasonably large sum and that decency and the law prevailed.

You could not rely on the Useless staff at the council. I wrote three letters asking if VCS had applied or gained planning permission for the Signage. Absloutley ignored all three times. Poor things are probably still at home smoking and drinking coffee sitting on their behinds

Hello Thank you for your reply and information. It sounds like it would be an uphill struggle and require a lot more legal prowess than I have, to mount any sort of claim against them. I still find it crazy that they can carry on as they do, cheating lying and weaponising the Court system and with no redress for the victims of their at best unscrupulous behaviour.

Hello I have been pondering the VCS claim and I am wondering if would be a possibility to take them to task over the misuse of the POFA. As far as I see it VCS do not have the authority from the landowner at Southend Airport and the fact that they were not entitled to access the DVLA as the Airport is covered by the Bye-laws thus not relevant land, plus there was no evidence to show or prove that the keeper was the driver. From limited investigation it appears that VCS accessing DVLA under those circumstances was without authority and a breach of Data Protection. Act. As you can probably imagine I am happy with the outcome of my case but I am far from happy that So much time and worry was spent defending the case and spoiling more or less a whole day for Court on a without merit case.

That was the weird bit, the judge could not have ruled on the contract because VCS did not include a contract in their WS.