VCS PCN Claimform - Broomfield Developements Broomspring Close. S37XA ***Claim Dismissed***

[lookinforinfo]

EB gave you the Parking-pranksters' blogspot as a reference in an earlier post which gives a whole list of cases that you can quote. In addition the PP has another site that gives a list of cases though it appears to be playing up on my computer at the moment.

Try

http://www.parking-prankster.com/more-case-law.html

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

http://www.parking-prankster.com/court-cases.html

 

Reading the actual cases will also give you an idea of how the Court itaself works and helps to show what you need to know.

Don't forget to add on all your costs and breach of GDPR and exemplary damages for wasting the Court's time as well as your own on a case that they had no hope of winning.

[lookinforinfo]

Wow that was quite a WS from them. looks as if they are trying to scare you or drive the Judge to sleep while reading it. to be honest there was too much for me to read it all, however I picked up a couple of things.

 

Their point 57 claims that you have failed to prove that you were not driving the car at the time of their alleged offence.

It is their job to prove that you were the driver. And they should know -

http://nebula.wsimg.com/ba23da00fdbf49863b82719de49e2d6c?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

 

Point 68. The Office of Fair Trading ruled many years ago that people in debt were not liable to pay such charges since there was no contract between the motorist and the debt collector. And according to POFA even if there were included in the signage that there would be an extra charge for non payment, that would only apply to the driver since they were the one who read the signs.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060716004337/http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf   [see paragraph 2.10]

 

It has already been pointed out that the contract is out of date.

Also as you were not showing their permit you were a trespasser and VCS cannot sue for that-only the land owner can.

I can see no evidence that they had permission to erect the signage under the Town and Country [advertisement ]Regulations which was fairly normal by the parking companies in those days.

It is illegal not to have that permission and if they haven't, it follows that the signs should not be there and motorists cannot be held liable for an illegal contract.

 

This lack of permission leads me on to their early statement [no. 5] where they make great play on how their membership of the ATA meant that they fully complied with the code of practice which is seriously misleading the Court.

 

I had hoped to find several examples of VCS losing in Court because they had not complied with the Code of Conduct.

I am sure there are hundreds but I would certainly make the point that their WS has gone overboard citing the Beavis case several times and it has absolutely no comparison with your case.

Same with Loake that they mention.

 

Point out to the Judge that they keep referring to both cases in their WS usually totally irrelevant but designed to intimidate the motorist into paying which is an abuse of process.

 

I did find this one where they had the wrong land owner signing the contract.

Don't know whether the land owner had changed since the contract was signed or whether it was a made up name to fool the Court which is not unknown with parking companies.

 

https://www.harrogateadvertiser.co.uk/business/hundreds-encouraged-to-seek-repayment-for-unlawful-knaresborough-parking-fines-1-8722440

 

Here is another one where they got their contract wrong

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/2019-07-vcs/

 

here is another one -also a contract  problem-VCS did not have Wickes agreement to pursue parking charges.

 

Renshaw -Smith has been ordered back to Court next month to explain why he pursued the motorist when the company had no lawful authority to do so.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150551/Thousands-beat-parking-fines-judge-tackles-766k-Mr-Clampit-landmark-penalty-claim-case.html

 

it is interesting that the same person was in Court for the same reason and I thought that he won it then. Strange that VCS would be so stupid as to go back to Court considering they knew they had no authority leaving themselves open to GDPR breaches and loads of motorists asking for their money back now. Definitely one to watch.The original below goes back to 2012

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

 

Be good if someone knew the story of why it took so long for the second case  to come to Court.

[lookinforinfo]

I have had another look at the WS and make another point.

 

Point 54 is misleading.

It states that the NTK must be posted within 14 days after the day of the offence when what Schedule 4   

[9.4 ]says is that the letter must be delivered WITHIN 14 days from the day after the offence which is what the WS confirms but then misses off the crucial wording  "relevant date" on [9.5  ] so it reads as if the NTK can be sent off any time within 14 days which is wrong.

 

It then says the NTK was sent before the 14 days.

But that may not have complied with Schedule 4 as if the NTK had been sent on the 14th day it  would have arrived too late.

So the WS was misleading again.

 

This calls into question the accuracy and veracity of the WS which is what you want to get the Judge to disregard it.

 

[lookinforinfo]

I would be inclined to rip their WS apart. That way, I doubt that VCS would wish to proceed to Court. 

In paragraph 5 VCS claim they have full compliance with their Code of Practice for Private Enforcement and Private Land. Really? Can this be the same VCS that was issuing PCNs between 2013 and 2017 knowing that the signage there had not been agreed by Liverpool council and therefore the signage was illegal. Here is an open letter from the Parking Prank

 

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

An open letter to Simon Renshaw Smith of VCS parking regarding Liverpool John Lennon Airport

 

19/11/2013

Dear Mr Renshaw Smith,

 

I wish to draw your attention to the procedural impropriety in your operational activities on the approach roads within Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

 

You are actively operating under contract to issue civil penalty tickets (PCN’s) for traffic offences on the roads such as stopping at the roadside, whether for seconds, minutes or even longer, or for parking on the roadside verges.

 

You are doing so based on an allegation of contractual agreement for a breach of parking conditions and are actively sending out a notice to keeper in each case where you ask for the name and address of the driver. You are doing this under the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

As you are no doubt aware, due to your many years of experience in emptying people’s wallets, where land is governed by byelaws the remedy for any breach of conditions of those byelaws is through the criminal courts, such as a magistrates.

 

Not only that, since the byelaws set an amount of penalty for failure to comply with them; a further amount based on your own assessment is unlawful at best and perhaps even fraudulent.

 

A set of the byelaws for the Liverpool Airport have now been obtained from a reliable source, Liverpool City Council,  which sets out the airport’s stance on roadway use, or misuse. It also lays down a penalty upon summary conviction for a breach of the byelaws of £5 for the 1^st offence and a further amount of 40 shillings for a continued daily breach.

 

I put it to you that these byelaws govern the airport’s penalty regime for the alleged contraventions you are enforcing. In fact there is no penalty for stopping at the roadside. There is no offence committed so there can be no penalty unless it can be proven in a magistrate’s court that this action amounted to a failure under para 14: “Driving or placing a vehicle carelessly or dangerously or without due consideration for persons using the airport”

 

Para 18 gives notice that a “failure by the driver of a vehicle to comply with any direction for the regulation of traffic given by a constable or any person acting on behalf of the council or a traffic sign” will be subject to the penalty regime of the aforementioned £5 plus 40 shillings per day afterwards.

 

The mention of the traffic signs and the council's part in the overall monitoring means that the signs must be compliant to the TSRGD which are those shown for the public highways; not the ones arbitrarily stuck at the roadside by yourself which are meaningless in the context of the legal status of the byelaws.

 

Furthermore, POFA 2012 3(1)(c) states that Schedule 4 only applies on land on which the parking of a vehicle is not subject to a statutory control. It further states (3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) the parking of a vehicle on land is “subject to statutory control” if any statutory provision imposes a liability (whether criminal or civil, and whether in the form of a fee or charge or a penalty of any kind) in respect of the parking on that land of vehicles generally or of vehicles of a description that includes the vehicle in question.

 

The byelaws state at para 2.19 that the following act is prohibited.

"parking a vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose."

The penalty for this is a fine not exceeding five pounds.

 

POFA 2012 therefore does not apply, and you may therefore only pursue the driver and not the registered keeper. Moreover, you may only pursue them for the sum of five pounds.

 

Knowingly pursuing the registered keeper when POFA 2012 is an offence which the DVLA take extremely seriously and may ban you from access. The BPA wrote to you in their electronic newsletter this month reiterating this.

 

I put it to you, Mr Renshaw Smith, that your company is operating unlawfully at the Liverpool Airport site and ask what you intend to do since this has now been brought to your notice.

 

May I remind you that since this is an unlawful operation, you may well be required at some later time to recompense the amounts of the PCN’s already paid by drivers, and perhaps face tough questions in a court of law, not just a civil court.

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Stopping Briefly At the Roadside

 

The Parking Prankster

 

The Prankster would like to thank his source for the above

 

I am sure that you will find other examples of VCS not complying with Code of Conduct or the Law.

 

And of course VCS do not have the ability to take you to Court because you were a trespasser and only the land owner can take a trespasser to Court.

 

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

I think you should have included the letter in your bundle to VCS and the Court. That way I would think VCS would not wish to go to Court as they would have to admit that they had been issuing PCNs for several years

having no contract to do so. Completely blowing out of the water their statement that they  adhere to the Code of Conduct. As they haven't and also lied in their Witness statement, it should be pointed out that they should not be able to access the DVLA for motorists data when they have breached the Code for so long .

It should also be pointed out their other misrepresentation. as I pointed out on post 123 and 126.

[lookinforinfo]

Great news.

[lookinforinfo]

Very good advice but too late for motorists who have yet to fall foul of the crooks. You caught them out with their signs not being where they said they were. this happens quite a lot with all of them and that calls into question their Witness statement. And that casts doubt in the Judge's mind about the veracity of the rest of the WS.  One Judge in a Parking Eye case said their WS was "tantamount to perjury". 

Needless to say, the motorist didn't lose that case.