VCS/ELMS PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - residential - Headford Mews, Sheffield, S3 7XL

[lookinforinfo]

Have you spoken to the person who you were doing work for to se if they can help or if they have a permit to park there.

[lookinforinfo]

They do have a minimum of 30 days to respond. 

[lookinforinfo]

Looking at the contract there are a couple of problems with it.

 

The first is that under the Companies Act 2006 the contract should be signed AND witnessed for it be a validly executed. The second thing is that Headford mews are managing agents and while there is a mention that the land owner gives permission for headford to act on their behalf, there is no proof from the landowner.

 

Also the redacting of the signatories means that it is not known whether they have the right to sign on behalf of both companies.

 

On the subject of planning permission, most councils have a planning portal these days  and in the search applications sector you can usually click on "Simple" and then put in the car park postcode and you can see whatever has been applied for over many years. 

 

In the contract at 3.6 they say that they will abide by heir CoP. As they don't have planning permission for their signs and ANPR they have not adhered to their CoP nor the Law as it is a criminal offence not to have the necessary permission.

Edited June 29, 2021 by lookinforinfo
typo

[lookinforinfo]

It is fairly typical of the parking crooks not to get things anywhere near right. Sadly so many people pay them.

[lookinforinfo]

Can you please post up their WS when you receive it along wih all the other bumf that is included with it. Aslo how are yoi getting on with your WS. Please do not send it off without posting it here nor send it off too early to give VCS  a chance to add a supplementary WS.

[lookinforinfo]

Unlikely until they have seen your WS but not impossible. We don't know what cases they may have lost recently on the same charge as yours for instance.

[lookinforinfo]

I have looked at your WS and you make some very good points with just a couple of things that would be better moved around.

 

Under your Sequence of Events  at 4.4 you move on to relevant contracts which needs a sector on its own.

Also you should make the point that as the Privacy Note was obviously a Note To Driver, the PCN should not have been sent within 14 days but after 28 days.  This was  an underhand attempt  to thwart PoFA by bringing forward the liability for payment but means instead that they issued an  NTK  which cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

 

Then move on to Relevant Contract which you have  already quoted the PoFA guidelines.

include that there are two property companies included both of which therefore should have signed the deed. In addition the two property companies and VCS should have been  signed by directors and their names and position identified.

 

The deed also required that the signatures be witnessed and named and should not include any director that had already signed the deed. Furthermore neither property company appears to be the actual land owner.

 

Strict proof is needed as to who is the landowner and also the link that allows the other two companies to sign on behalf of the land owner. So VCS have no Locus Standi until the landowner is provided and the connection with the two property companies is proved. 

Under PoFA their needs to be a contract between the land owner and VCS which governs the behaviour of the motorist. Without that deed, there is no contract with the defendant.

 

As an aside you may have seen on the boundary map that Headford property described themselves as the "lawful Occupier". This does not necessarily mean that they are the land owners they can be tenants just as easily.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/lawful-occupier I would be inclined to take that definition with you but not include it in your list of documents.

 

You have already covered points 5 and 6 so there is no need to repeat. And no need to include Bye laws since there are none.

 

7]  You can delete all of this as you did that now on 4.6 or 4.7 and there is no need to include Excel. They have no signage in the car park and the Privacy Notice doubles up as a notice from excel and vcs but you will notice that only vcs is ticked on the privacy notice. And remove 7.1 as well.

 

8] you do not know that the first PCN came from excel. I suspect that the mixup on the Privacy Notice caused you to think that and as you threw away that PCN  you are on a sticky wicket accusing them.

 

On 4.6 you can include that VCS do not have planning permission for their signage and cctv cameras which is a legal requirement under Town and Country {advertisements] Regulations 2007. Without that permission they do not have the right to erect signs nor install cameras which puts them in breach of their COP where you can include Lord Neuberger's thoughts on the right to use the DVLA when they are not compliant even with their COP never mind the Law.

 

When their WS arrives please post it up so that we can see where they have gone wrong and correct it so the Judge is not misdirected.

 

By the way, I have seen the VCS contract but not the original PCN. If you have it could you please post it up as there may be other ways in which it does not comply with PoFA.

[lookinforinfo]

If VCS send their WS to you before yours needs filing it gives you an advantage.  Obviously they send you their WS full of legal examples which appear to strengthen their case and put you off turning up in Court. Some parking companies send a WS with over 30 pages which is hoped will frighten the motorist but it is a double edged sword.

 

Once you know the lies and misdirection used by these crooks [yes they do lie and misdirect] you can point them out in your WS which makes it far more likely that it is they who do not turn up in Court. And of course if they do turn up, the greater the chance of you winning if you were able to refute many of their often outlandish claims and suggestions.

 

On another note, their no. 6 Court Doc. is perhaps to remind VCS to include the contract and where it was signed though I am unsure how the Court could prove that it wasn't signed where stated.

 

As far as photos are concerned there is no reason for them to be blurred unless they are trying to cover the fact that the vehicle was not breaching the terms there and so they blur the photos to cover their tactics. Also that they use A4 paper as the Courts have finally caught on the crooks increasing font sizes on their photos to show that they comply with required size notice  when they don't actually comply.

 

The last two points are getting VCS in this case to explain what the breach was since they don't always detail it nor do they breakdown how they arrived at their final figure.  This is a good thing for the motorist and if they don't do it that can be something else  you can use against them when you see their WS.

 

This is going back a few posts now but if you think that the NTK was from Excel rather than just seeing their name on the privacy notice. You should contact the solicitors pointing out that the windscreen notice and the NTK are missing and so they have not complied with the SAR stipulations. Give them 14 days or a complaint will go to the ICO.

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

In addition to posting up the whole contract could you please also include the PCNs which should settle the Excel/VCS question. 

[lookinforinfo]

I was hoping that all the PCNs would have been included with the WS as they should. An alternative to the DVLA may be to go back to Headford Mews to see what the signs are.

Also you could put them to strict proof that the signage was VCS at the time and not Excel which is quite normal for both those companies despite it being unlawful for them to do that. 

See this below and include it in your WS since it shows VCS and BW legal lying about the situation. They could be doing the same with you.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/vcs-discontinue-another-albert-street.html    this was a terrible case and there were another two or three cases mentioned in thesame post..

 

In addition if you look at this thread  post 3 by Ericsbrother it explains the legal situation between the two companies

 

[lookinforinfo]

The contract should not have had the signatories redacted. Now there is no way to confirm if the contract was even let alone validly executed. 

 

Under the Companies Act 2006 the requirements for a document to be validly executed are-

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and 

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The "Contract" that VCS showed gives no indication of who signed it or what capacity -was it a Director as it should have been  and was it witnessed as it should have been. At the moment there is no way of knowing if it has been validly executed and VCS must be put to strict proof that it has. There is no reason for the signatures to have been redacted other than it has not been properly executed. so you must be aware of the provisions for document execution as VCS will say anything to get out of the situation

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

I have realised that the signs I was referring to were on Google maps dated 2015. And while the signs may well have been updated by  VCS nevertheless the signs did include the Clearway sign which relates to the Road Traffic signs. That does not give VCS the right therefore to penalise motorists on non relevant land.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Hideyspidey

I am so sorry to have confused you in my post 180. It was intended for another poster!

 

Clearway signs are not relevant in your case and so you should delete it from your WS.

 

However you can argue that the Privacy notice on your windscreen was a non compliant Notice to Driver so the Notice to keeper should not have arrived before 28 days had elapsed. Therefore they cannot transfer the paying of the alleged debt to the keeper as the NTK was non compliant.

 

If the Judge does not agree with the Privacy notice being a NTD and the NTK arrived within the 14 days you can still complain that it is not compliant with PoFA for another reason which I will deal with tomorrow.

 

[lookinforinfo]

In order for an NTK to be compliant it has to comply with PoFA. If it is not compliant then the keeper cannot be held liable for the PCN. 

 

I have included the wording from S8 though  s9 is identical in the part I have copied below. You will see that at the beginning  "The Notice  'must' " which in Law means the wording  is to be stictly observed

 

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

 

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

 

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

 

(d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice to keeper, and

 

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

 

(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—

 

(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or

 

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

 

(f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given—

 

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and

 

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

 

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;

 

(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

 

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

 

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

 

If you compare that with the NTK you were sent you will see that your one does not include  "   (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) "

 

Your NTK also states that if you don't pay the £100 that you will be liable for debt collection charges up to £60. this contradicts section 4 of PoFA where it covers the right of the parking crooks to pursue motorists

 

[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

 

So their NTK is non compliant in two places. 

 

In any event Ambreen is wrong to declare that if they cannot pursue the keeper than they can assume that the keeper was the driver. The court will not entertain that idea -VCS need to provide strict proof that the keeper is the driver.

 

So despite Ambreen claiming that they can proceed against the keeper she is wrong. [17,18 and !9 of her WS].

 

They quote Parking Eye v Beavis   [22] which is irrelevant since that was a free car park and yours is a residential parking space covered by a lease which VCS cannot overturn.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2021 by dx100uk
added A few blank lines only..dx

[lookinforinfo]

They could still not attend on the day of course hoping that you might not either. It does seem unfair that they would get a walkover if neither of you turned up.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Don't forget that they cannot pursue you as the keeper because their PCN was non compliant. So they need strict proof that you were the driver. 

The Office of Fair Trading may be defunct now but the Financial Conduct authority have adopted their ideas on Debt Guidance including this-

Charging for debt recovery

 

3.10 Charges should not be levied inappropriately or unfairly. 3.11 Examples of unfair or improper practices are as follows:

a. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay recovery charges when this is not the case

b. claiming recovery costs from a debtor in the absence of express contractual provision to be able to do so

 For example, where there is no provision in the credit agreement that expressly allows for such charges to be levied.

 

So the charges are unfair from the point of view that the actual amount claimed is not on their signs and £60 or £70 is totally  out of proportion to their £100 charge.  And it was the debt recovery sum you were querying. Bear in mind that many debt collectors do not charge the parking company for debt collection because they get the motorist to pay if they are successful. However even they are not successful, parking companies still seem to think they can charge the motorist. And of course you have primacy of contract.

 

Good Luck. Please do not worry -you have a strong case. Don't forget to ask for your expenses.

Edited November 20, 2021 by lookinforinfo

[lookinforinfo]

The poor dears keep trotting out PE v Beavis  as if it were a magic potion that wins all their cases. As Headford Mews is a residential car park with permits the Beavis case does not apply. In any event the contract by the owners of the apartments and the landowner far outweighs the piddling contract from VCS.

 

Incidentally, did you receive a further page of their contract with Headford mews as the contract refers to point number 3.1 in the contract yet the portion you showed did not have any part of that contract numbered.

 

I think I made the point before but you if the Court is going to rely on the VCS contract then the signatories for Headford Mews must be unredacted to prove the contract was signed by at least one director of the company  and either a witness i or another director of the company beneath which is their hand printed name for identification. there should also be a link from Headford mews to Fairways property management showing that they have permission to sign on behalf of Fairways.

Really the VCS contract should not be taken into consideration as the important contract is the one with the tenant of the flat you were visiting and that is the point you should get across to the Judge since that was the initial contract and it cannot be overruled by the VCS one regardless of how much VCS would like that to happen. They are total crooks.

 

 

if their solicitor tries to bluff that their contract is relevant then hit back with VCS are well known for pursuing motorists when they have no contract to do so. Such as at airports which are covered by statutory was and byelaws and therefore not relevant land. They lose time and again in Court. They even had to pay out £1000 in costs and damages to one disabled motorist that they had pursued for over two years after losing yet another case this month.

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

The judge was wrong in law.

 

primacy of contract means that there is a contract between the landowner/managing agent and the tenant. That does not allow VCS to overrule the lease agreement of the tenant. Davey v UKPC proved that. That was a case back in 2012 or 2013 listed on CAG where the tenant took UKPC Court for trespass and won.

 

Of course that would depend on the lease that your tenant had with the land owner but I doubt it was produced in Court. Normally a Judge would know that but there are always some who were off on the day that supremacy of contract was taught.

 

I did suggest some time ago  that you talked with your tenant and from there you may have obtained a copy of their lease. Not withstanding that , supremacy of lease should have been the clincher anyway. 

 

Contract ? License ? what is he on about.

The signed document said it was a contract.

There needs to be a contract with PoFA for VCS to be able to pursue motorists who breach the contract .

 

If it were me I would appeal against the ruling but I would first get a sight of the tenant's lease.

Edited November 25, 2021 by dx100uk
spacing

[lookinforinfo]

All that being said I am very sorry you lost what I thought was a strong case. Interestingly Jazzhands  has a case going though court at the moment and at post 77 you will see that the Judge said that the case will probably rest on the supremacy of contract.

Jazzhands obviously has a more clued up Judge than you had.