VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - No Stopping 47) STOPPING IN A RESTRICTED BUS STOP /STAND Robin Hood Airport Doncaster

[lookinforinfo]

The letter you received was from Excel parking yet VCS are also involved. That cannot only one company can have the contract. VCS do not rely on PoFA so they cannot pursue the keeper-only the driver is liable when PoFA does not apply. In any event,

 

their PCN is wrong as the Law does not state that if you do not reveal the name of the driver then they can pursue as the keeper on presumption that you are the driver. That is not what the act says and in any event they are not using PoFA!

 

As dx100uk rightly states the airport is covered by ByeLaws which outrank the shady crooks  signs. And where the roads aren't  covered by Byelaws, they are covered by the Road Traffic Act. So the airport land is not "Relevant Land" and so not covered by PoFA either. So no way do you owe them a penny.

 

[lookinforinfo]

As their PCN was out of time they cannot pursue you as the keeper under PoFA. So they are continuing to claim money from you by assuming you were the driver. This is something they cannot do and as well as VCS knowing it, Judges also know it. Just ensure that you never reveal who was driving.

[lookinforinfo]

As far as I am aware, bus stops/stands come under the aegis of the Road Traffic Act not Byelaws or private parking companies so I can see no reason why they even have the right to issue you with a PCN.

[lookinforinfo]

I read that you think you stopped outside the airport area. They say on their PCN that the postcode you stopped in was

DN9 3RH which appears to be inside the airport.

Could you please clarify which road you stopped on as they frequently get the postcode wrong, along with everything else. If the postcode is wrong, then theri whole case fails.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just remembered something else. In their contract [which isn't a valid contract ] there is nowhere that allows VCS to pursue motorists to Court. Yes they can issue  PCNs but doesn't appear to allow them to go to Court. On top of that while they say the airport is private, it is also  a public place as vehicles have to  travel to and from the airport with passengers.

[lookinforinfo]

When you receive their WS could you please post it up as well as everything else they send.

[lookinforinfo]

I haven't had a chance to have a good look at their WS but it appears to me that they may not have used the right reason for issuing the PCN under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. 

The law does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway  VCS have been very sly by either selectively avoiding including the signage relating to when cars can park on bus stops or they have deliberately photoshopped them.

 

Judging by the No Stopping signs this is a clearway in which the offence should be "Stopped where prohibited-on a red route or a clearway}"  You should put them to strict proof on which TSRGD reg. they are pursuing you with,

[lookinforinfo]

I have had time to look at their WS and I cannot for the life of me understand why Guy Burgess could say that they had a strong case.

 

For a start the bus stand is not on relevant land. This knocks their case out of the window for starters. The road is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The signs around the bus stop that say NO Stopping do not mention VCS or Peel Investments  [the alleged land owners]. The signage should identify the creditor-it doesn't -a breach of the CoP. The signage around the bus stop is prohibitive so incapable of forming a contract.

 

I note that they mention a couple of occasions where they have won such cases but none were on airports on land that is not relevant and may well be covered by Bye Laws which over rule any pathetic signs by VCS whose declared service is to provide cost effective parking solutions.

 

So why they are trying to do no stopping on bus stops rather than car parks is beyond me-and by the look of it beyond VCS too. They spend so much time trying to pretend there is a contract and it is not even on relevant land.

 

And the contract is a joke. It's written as a Witness Statement! Under the Companies Act it should be a document signed by directors of both companies and then witnessed by two independent people. It certainly cannot be signed by a manager from Peel and no one from VCS. So there is no contract. In any event the "contract" does not mention that VCS are able to pursue motorists to court.

 

As a rough rule of thumb, the longer their WS, the poorer their case is. Here they use all kinds of irrelevant cases to back their rubbish. They quote the Beavis case which was about parking in a car park while your case is about stopping, not parking, in a bus stop on a road covered by the RTA.

 

Talk about clutching at straws.

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue

[lookinforinfo]

To carry on from the above post it may be helpful to go through their WS using their numbers.

 

9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land.

First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that

a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.

b] the signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the No Stopping signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and the creditor be identified. 

 

10]There is no mention of £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian.

 

11] no matter how often VCS say it, it is NOT a contractual clause

 

22]" the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site". No it hasn't. This is a road leading to the airport.

 

All sorts of people are going to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS wth any sort of permissions. The land owners yes, but not VCS . There can be no sort of analogy between a car park and a major thoroughfare where VCS have no place as it is not relevant land.

 

23] there can be no contract as there is no offer only a prohibition. And it is not relevant land no matter how Mr Walli attempts to prove otherwise.

 

25] VCS may have won a few times but none quoted was on an airport covered by the RTA and its own Byelaws. They also have lost more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.

 

26] First one has to consider if there is a contract. Is it relevant land? No. Does a valid contract exist betweer VCS and Peel? NO. 

 

27] the signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible 

 

29] already stated that a WS between VCS and peel is not a valid document

 

31] it will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant no matter who was driving.

 

32] there is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employedd relationship. VCS are muddying the waters because they have no way of transferring the driver's liability to the keeper

 

33] this a red herring. There is no list of highways at all  on the Highways act 1980 so this is a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws.

 

34] there ican be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. Totally fatuous analogy. 

 

35] yes the landowners can bring in their own terms but what the cannot do is overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act.

 

39] surely the paralegal cannot be that ignorant of PoFA. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and so the specious argument about FGW is rubbish

 

36] what on earth is he talking about with Permits. There is no mention of permits on the signage and even if there were  would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on No Stopping roads?

 

There are enough examples on CAG to counter act their idiocy on continuing charging the extra £60

 

46] VCS had NO reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details.

No valid  contract with the landowners

• No stopping is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract
• the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction
• the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for a motorist to be able to read it 
• the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP so not valid
• the WS contract does not appear to authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court

 

Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land.

 

48] what is this guy on? You weren't in a car park you were on a bus stop

 

59] this case is totally without merit. I am not surprised that the paralegal will not be turning up. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. Could have been said in at least half the time without the repetition and trying to make a case where none was there.

 

One particularly bad example of misdirection was in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by dx100uk
formatting/spacing only - no issue

[lookinforinfo]

Very good points by Andy

 

. In addition the NTK is not compliant as the wording should not include that they can work on the assumption that the keeper is the driver.

 

also they have omitted to say that they can transfer the debt from the driver to the keeper if they have not added the proviso  "providing all the applicable conditions of the Schedule have been met".  PoFA 8 &9  [2] [f]. 

 

Nor did they specify the waiting time of the car in the bus stop as they have to state the period of parking from a to b to even begin to comply with the provisions of PoFA  Schedule 7 [2][a].

 

In any event you were not parking, merely stopping and even they they have not stated how long you stopped for. So another reason why they have not provided all the applivcable conditions of the Schedule .

 

Include  a copy of PoFA to the Court highlighting where VCS have gone wrong and familiarise yourself with those parts of the Act so that you can argue why you are right though if the Judge is sufficiently savvy it may not be necessary to argue those points. 

 

 

You should have any easy win but do not let VCS get away with mis-directing the Court. And keep asking for strict proof about things like the contract signatures [MUST be  a director of peel group]  strict proof of who was driving since it cannot be the keeper. Strict proof too of the bus stop coming under VCS jurisdiction.

 

It's a shame that they do not need to prove that they are of sound mind since they would lose on that one so good luck .

Edited October 23, 2021 by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx

[lookinforinfo]

Well done for not allowing them to email you during the hearing. That is why we ask our members not to allow them the use of your email address precisely because they will try and ambush you.

Your WS obviously worried them hence the supplementary WS  so you are best to study what they say in the new WS that may conflict with their original and how to refute it. And in the middle of a Court hearing is not the place to do it.

But it might mean that in your supplementary WS we can slip in that VCS have  reecntly been fined £1000 for ssuing a PCN on a Council maintained road.

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by lookinforinfo