VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - appealed - Berkeley Centre Sheffield *** Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

Yes, please fill in the sticky that HB posted - the more ammo we have against them, the better.

 

To answer your questions.

 

1.  You're right.  However the PPCs have complete contempt for the law and will pursue you regardless, hoping you will finally give in, or they'll get a default judgement, etc.

 

2.  You need to reply to the LBC and make it quite clear to the charlatans that you will be big trouble if they do do court.  We call this the "snotty letter" strategy.  Do a search on the forum for "snotty letter" and you'll see loads of examples. 

 

3.  Again, you're right.

 

4.  The best way is to deal with the matter in two stages.  Firstly, concentrate on seeing off the ticket.  Then later, if you want revenge, sue them for breach of GDPR.

[FTMDave]

Oh dear.  The Berkley Centre, and Simple Simon (the owner of VCS & Excel) are both very well known to the forum.  I mentioned contempt for the law.  We have a case at the moment where Simon is trying to chisel money out of a motorist for stopping in a "no stopping area" ... at a zebra crossing ... with a pedestrian walking on it.  I kid you not.  The motorist would have been charged with murder if they had stuck to Simon's silly signs.

 

The good news is that VCS have an excellent track record of getting an absolute legal thumping at the Berkley Centre.

 

We have had two threads this week where Simon has lost court cases (not at the Berkley Centre).

 

Do a search for "VCS Excel snotty letter" and post up a draft of what you intend to send.

[FTMDave]

No, don't use their return form.  The whole point of the letter is to show you've sussed that they are con artists trying to bully motorists into paying money which isn't owed, so you show as much contempt for their procedures as possible.

 

Sure, threaten them back that if they take you to court they will get hammered with a full costs order due to unreasonable behaviour under CPR27.14(2)(g) and you will then sue them for breach of GDPR.  Refer to your earlier letter to show you're in control, you've given them ample warning to stop their foolishness.

 

Simple Simon never, ever cancels tickets, that avenue is impossible I'm afraid.  Sometimes he starts court cases however hopeless they are in the hope the motorist will be terrified and give in, sometimes a snotty letter sees him off.  Nothing is certain but you can create your own luck IYSWIM by being aggressive and showing you would be big trouble for Simon in court.

[FTMDave]

How about something like? ...

 

 

Dear Simple Simon.

 

Ref PCN: ****
VRM: ****

Contravention Date: 06/10/2020
Issue Date (Posted): 22/10/2020
Date Received: 27/10/2020

 

Cheers for your Letter Before Action.  My local supermarket has completely run out of toilet paper, so it was good of you to help me out in these dark days of lockdown and panic-buying.

 

I've already told you on XX/XX/XXXX that I know your case is pants.  I see in the Letter Before Action you couldn't resist adding on the Unicorn Food Tax too so that's another spectacular own goal to add to the list .

 

How many times have you been hammered in court in Berkley centre cases?  If you want another thrashing, that's fine by me.  I will seek a full costs order due to unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g), and I've already drafted my particulars of claim for breach of GDPR and the Data Protection Act.

 

I now look forward to your deafening silence.

 

 

EDIT: All the great work you've done above will be very useful (a) if Simon is daft enough to issue a claimform and (b) in case of any future run-ins with VCS or Excel, which unfortunately is probably likely given they infest car parks all over the country.

 

However, the point now is to show Simon you'd put him to a great deal of trouble and expense in court, so he'd be better off forgetting about you and instead going after some mug who takes his threats seriously and would just cough up.

Edited January 18, 2021 by FTMDave

[FTMDave]

Post hidden.

 

You haven't redacted anything.  Your full name is showing twice.  And your address.  Plus your registration number.  And VCS's reference.

[FTMDave]

You'd already been through PAPLOC in January and told VCS to do their worst so as dx said in post 16 you could have just ignored this latest letter.

 

Still, no harm done.

[FTMDave]

1.  We don't recommend to counter claim.  This is because one of Simon's disgusting tactics is to issue a claim form, even in the weakest cases (after all, it's a cut & paste job done on a computer in 30 seconds and only costs £25).

 

Simon hopes the motorist will be terrified of going to court and will cough up.  However, often if the claim is robustly defended Simon will discontinue.  It's £25 down the drain but the mugs who give in pay their £25 plus £60 Unicorn Food Tax which funds more of these claims.

 

If you counter claim it means the case wouldn't just stop with VCS's discontinuance making it virtually certain VCS wouldn't discontinue and you'd have to go through with a full court case.

 

By all means though go after Simon in a separate action for GDPR.  You could even send a Letter Before Claim now, although it would make more legal sense to beat VCS in this case and then start the GDPR action after having already won.

 

2.  Your defence will be a couple of lines - examples will be in all claim form threads here.  The time to flesh your case out and go into every detail is later, at the Witness Statement stage.  Have a read of some claim form threads and you'll soon get the idea.  Alaska101's thread would be a good place to start.

Edited August 8, 2021 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

I see you reported a post to tell us you had received a letter from the court.

 

Please let us know here what has arrived and the regulars will help.

[FTMDave]

You do not agree to the claim being dealt with on the papers alone.  Two reasons.

 

Firstly, Simon could tell any old lie and you'd have no way of countering it.

 

Secondly, you cost VCS money.  Although they have a litigation department, their bods never appear in court - which may or may not be connected with VCS's representative being threatened with imprisonment by the judge in a famous case - so have to fork out money for a solicitor to represent them.  Now & again they discontinue a case rather than spending this money. 

[FTMDave]

At a first glance that looks great work.

 

One slight gripe is that in (4) you mention "the illegality of their claim".  It's not illegal.  Change it to "the unlawfulness of their claim".

 

I'll have a proper read tomorrow.

 

Have VCS sent you their WS?

 

 

[FTMDave]

What you've written is excellent, but if we can fine tune it so much the better.

 

In (22) and (23) you did actually receive these two letters, right?  Just they are not mentioned in your thread.

 

Realistically the judge won't throw out the claim due to the Unicorn Food Tax or a breach of the CoP, so really your only argument is POFA.  It's a very strong argument but if the judge doesn't accept it then you're scuppered.

 

I think it would be better to include other arguments.  The judge only has to agree with one to chuck Simon in the bin.

 

So after (21) stick in another section about Locus Standi, reiterate what you wrote in (5), say that VCS are not the landowner and have no right to bring the claim.

 

Immediately after put in another part about planning permission, reiterate (5) and state you do not believe VCS have PP which is a criminal offence and means a contract couldn't be formed.

 

I would put the stuff about the Unicorn Food Tax at the end.  So the order would be

   current 1-21

   locus standi

   planning permission

   current 30-34

   current 22-29

   current 35-end.

 

You haven't told us if you've received VCS's WS yet?

[FTMDave]

The revised WS looks damn good to me.

 

Hang on till as late as possible to try to get sight of Simon's.

[FTMDave]

It's strange that the court has asked you this, as hearings have been on-line due to COVID for a while now and we presumed would be for at least the near future.

 

Can you please type out or upload exactly what the court asked?

 

I'm just worried they might be asking about "on the papers" which is a very different thing.

[FTMDave]

As long as the dreaded words "on the papers" are not included, then there's no problem.

 

You decide.

 

Remember however that if there is a face-to-face hearing that Simple Simon will have to get a solicitor local to you to turn up to court at great inconvenience and expense, cash he wouldn't be able to get back even if he won the case, which may make him decide to discontinue.  

[FTMDave]

I'll have a good read through Ambreen's drivel and comment, but it will be very late this evening due to work.

 

In the meantime ring the court as dx suggested and ask them if they have received a WS from VCS and if so when.

 

At first glance you can use this new document against Simple Simon.  VCS reckon they run the site and can sue people themselves - yet when it comes to planning permission it's all the landowner's responsibility!  They normally include their contact with the landowner and if they haven't it it will be because something is wrong with it.

 

EDIT: I've just realised today's stuff didn't include Simon's original WS.  Yes, as you are, unfortunately, in contact with VCS by e-mail, yes e-mail them and ask for a copy.  If they don't cooperate by late afternoon think about sending a 1st class letter.

Edited January 11, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

4 hours ago, FTMDave said:

Yes, as you are, unfortunately, in contact with VCS by e-mail, yes e-mail them and ask for a copy.  If they don't cooperate by late afternoon think about sending a 1st class letter.

Have you been able to contact VCS?

[FTMDave]

I'd hoped to be able to comment tonight on both the VCS main WS and the supplementary one, to help you ridicule some of their points in your own supplementary WS.  However, to do that we need to know if you have had any joy in getting Simple Simon to cooperate re the original WS.

 

 

[FTMDave]

That's fine, it gets the job done.

 

BTW, if they don't cooperate, don't worry, we know broadly what they will send because they always send the same tripe.

 

Just if we can get our hands on the physical WS with its numbered paragraphs then you can write your own supplementary WS pulling it to bits.

[FTMDave]

In fact you should start drafting your own Supplemental Witness Statement given we know bits that are bound to be in VCS's WS.

 

VCS SWS (5).  A paragraph proving you sent the CPR with the CoP as an exhibit.

 

VCS SWS (7).  A paragraph stating that you have researched scores of VCS cases and VCS normally have no problem including their contract with the landowners.  They do not use the "commercially sensitive document" excuse.  If they refuse to produce a contract they have not established locus standi.

 

VCS SWS (8).  It is ironic that on the one hand VCS claim to run the site and to be able to litigate under their own name, yet when it comes to planning permission for the XX number or signs, all of which prominently display VCS's name and claim the driver is entering into a contract with VCS, suddenly planning permission is the task of the landowner.  Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under (XXXX go and look up the law, I can't remember off hand) and means no contract can have been formed. 

 

This too -

 

In paragraphs (xx), (xx), and (xx) VCS make great play of their claim that they have followed the IPC's procedures.  It is really neither here nor there if the IPC is in agreement with VCS.  The IPC is a trade association, hopelessly biased in favour of its members.  In fact it was set up as a rival to the British Parking Association simply because, in the opinion of companies such as VCS, the BPA was too fair on the motorist.  It is the law in England and Wales, not the IPC, that decides what is reasonable and lawful.  

 

Ambreen 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 are 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.

[FTMDave]

As far as I know these Supplemental Witness Statements can be disallowed by the judge, but logically if hers gets accepted yours will so I think you need to draw yours up.

 

I've seen she has included a contract so I've cut one of my earlier paragraphs out.

 

But she has included photos of EXCEL signage!!!!!

 

You can use her style as an introduction and add that you received the SWS on 10 January and the original WS later only on 12 January so wish to make some extra points.

 

1.  VCS SWS (5).  A paragraph proving you sent the CPR with the CoP as an exhibit.

 

2.  VCS SWS (8).  It is ironic that on the one hand VCS claim to run the site and to be able to litigate under their own name, yet when it comes to planning permission for the 11 signs (WS (7), (14) (43)), all of which prominently display VCS's name and claim the driver is entering into a contract with VCS, suddenly planning permission is the task of the landowner.  Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Town and Country Planning Acts 1990 & 2007 and means no contract can have been formed. 

 

3.  From the exhibits in VCS's WS it can be seen the signage is extremely confusing.  Some signs state that VCS run the Berkeley Centre car park yet at least three others state that a completely different company, a certain Excel Parking Services Limited, run the car park.  it is impossible for the motorist to know which signs are valid and which company he or she is entering into a contract with.  VCS have not established locus standi as it seems a completely different company also administer the exact same car park.

 

4.  WS (18-22)  VCS are not using the Protection of Freedoms Act to establish keeper liability.  This backs up what I stated in my Witness Statement.  They should be suing the driver.  They are are suing the wrong person.

 

5.  VCS are attempting double, indeed triple recovery.  As well as £50 legal costs they have invented an extra sum of £60.  Furthermore, in a letter to me dated 30 November (exhibit XXX) they state they will ask the court for £220 extra costs although they know full well that legal costs are capped at £50.

 

6.  In WS (44) VCS make great play of their claim that they have followed the IPC's procedures.  It is really neither here nor there if the IPC is in agreement with VCS.  The IPC is a trade association, hopelessly biased in favour of its members.  In fact it was set up as a rival to the British Parking Association simply because, in the opinion of companies such as VCS, the BPA was too fair on the motorist.  It is the law in England and Wales, not the IPC, that decides what is reasonable and lawful.  

 

7.  In WS (25) in the strange numbering system of 22, 23, 43, 44, 45, 24, 25, Ambreen 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 are 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.

 

Then at the end invite the court to dismiss the case and copy her Statement of Truth.

 

Hang on though for 24 hours to get ideas from the other regulars.

Edited January 12, 2022 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

That reads very, very well.  Well done.  You've obviously put a massive amount of work in.

 

If you can, hang on till late afternoon just to see if the other regulars have comments, then e-mail the court their copy and send Simon's his as usual from the post office with the CoP.

[FTMDave]

34 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

In your supplemental you should add that as you have just received their initial WS you can see that the contract with the Berkeley centre is with Excel . VCS has lost many times in Court for suing motorists in their own name rather than Excel.

Very well spotted LFI.  I didn't notice the contract is with Excel.

 

So if the OP has time, between the current (5) and (6), a new paragraph needs to go in that not only has Ambreen not produced a contract between VCS and the landowner, but she has produced a contract showing that a completely different company, Excel Parking Services Limited, has a contract with the landowner.

 

Then at the end put the part about exemplary costs.

[FTMDave]

The thing is that in the Prankster case referred to VCS gave in and discontinued, it wasn't as if the judge found against them.

 

Personally I think the SWS is fine as it is and good to go in the morning.

 

Wrong company suing, wrong person being sued, etc. - there should be more than enough to see off Simon.  I doubt Ambreen will be very happy when she opens simsplayer96's letter on Monday morning

[FTMDave]

Well done on your victory!