Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 3rd Dec 16, 4:10 PM
    • 183Posts
    • 114Thanks
    MadHatter752
    VCS/BW Legal - Court tomorrow!!
    • #1
    • 3rd Dec 16, 4:10 PM
    VCS/BW Legal - Court tomorrow!! 3rd Dec 16 at 4:10 PM
    Hello

    After a week of reading through threads on this forum (including the newbie sticky) to find an answer to my predicament I am finally at my wits end and having to start my own thread... sorry to anyone annoyed by this but the wealth of information is baffling and I cannot waste anymore time reading things I don't understand and getting more confused! So THANK YOU to everyone who reads and helps.

    So... in October 2014 a ticket was put on the car i am the registered keeper of in a free train station car park, informing the driver that they were "parked beyond the bay markings". The PCN was issued by Vehicle Control Services Ltd.

    Debt Recovery Plus Ltd appear to have become involved and I have received numerous letters from them. Upon receipts of letters from DRP I read lots of threads on this forum which I thought advised me to ignore. I have therefore not appealed or had any contact with VCS or DRP.

    On 21st November, I received a letter from bw Legal entitled a "Letter of Claim" which I understand is another name for Letter before Action, asking me to pay the payment or detail grounds for dispute by 7th December, hence why I am getting a bit panicky... my time is running out to reply to this.

    They mention what I gather is all the usual stuff re County Court Proceedings could be issued, Parking Eye vs Beavis, CCJs.

    I know I have to reply to this letter as it is from the Solicitors and I have drafted the below. Is this sufficient for now? Is there anything else I can use to get them to stop hassling me. Also, some are saying send registered post, others saying email... what is the recommendation please?

    Thank you!!!







    Ref: VCS/******************



    Dear BWLegal,



    Further to your letter dated 21 November, I am writing to confirm that I amthe registered keeper of the vehicle in question, however I deny any debt toVCS Ltd.

    Your letter dated 21 November, refers to a letter dated 21 November whichyou have not received a response from. Pleasenote, this is the first letter I have received from yourselves.

    In order to respond fully to yourclaims, I should be grateful if you could issue a letter that fully meets therequirements of the Practice Direction for pre-action conduct andprotocols.

    I am disappointed in your breaches of the Solicitors Code of Conduct inrelation to your attempt to use a third party’s lack of legal knowledge to yourown advantage.

    I also note your misrepresentation of the consequences of an adversejudgement. You are in breach of Chapter 11 of the Solicitors Code of Conduct,specifically (Indicative Behaviours) IB 11.7 and 11.8.

    I shall be making contact with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority inrelation to your threats of court proceeding, CCJs and your mention of ParkingEye Limited vs Beavis (2015) UKSC. I findyour letter very intimidating and unprofessional.


    Furthermore, as a member of the Credit Services Association and thereforesignatory to their codes of practice, BWLegal is inbreach of several of these codes. As the debt is disputed continuedcorrespondence from yourselves will be seen as a further breach of that COP.


    Yours Faithfully"





    Cc: SRA
    Last edited by MadHatter752; 03-07-2017 at 7:22 PM.
Page 8
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Jun 17, 3:14 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    4. The court responded to my appeal for its assistance by ordering the Claimant to file a Reply to the Defence by x date. The Claimant has failed to do so. I am left having to draft and file a Witness Statement in respect of a claim which I still do not fully understand, while the Claimant remains in contempt of court. There are core documents and information which it clearly should have produced by now which would have enabled me to understand the claim I must meet – for instance, a copy of any contract giving it authority to operate on the land and to pursue these proceedings, copies of photographs taken by its operative which will show in what manner it is alleged that the vehicle was incorrectly parked, a copy of its signage displayed in the carpark at the relevant time which it asserts is the contract which forms the basis of this claim (and such contract should also have been produced in accordance with Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7). Presumably, the court’s intention was also that the Claimant should respond to the absolute defence that the Byelaws apply to the car park and that this claim is therefore bound to fail. Para numbering has gone wrong from this point, you need to make sure all para numbers follow on properly

    The Byelaws

    4.
    Exhibited at pages x to x of RH1 are the following documents:
    • [doc referred to in your defence, para 5]
    • [other doc referred to in your defence, para 5]
    • The result of a Freedom of Information Act request addressed to [x] dated [y].
    • Transport for West Midlands (previously CENTRO) state in the document at page [] of RH1 are on record as stating that they are were aware that charges issued in car parks which fall under the Railway Byelaws could not be enforced by a private parking firm like VCS Ltd, and could only be a matter for CENTRO to enforce within 6 months, via Magistrates court only.
    • Set out here the other stuff you said in para 5 about what these documents say.
    • At page x of RH1 is the response to a Freedom of Information Act request which confirms [what does it say and how does it help – set it out here – or does the para below deal with it?]
    • Exhibited hereto at page x of RH1 and marked RH ** is a printout from www.whatdotheyknow.com which is the published result of a Freedom of Information Act request regarding Railway Byelaws at Sandwell and Dudley Railway station, operated also by West Midlands Combined Authority/Transport for West Midlands. I refer to point 2 from the West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive:

      2. There are no car parks at this location to which WMCA believe the byelaws do not apply”
    • I have reasonable believe that Byelaws apply throughout the West Midlands Combined Authority/Transport for West Midlands network as indicated in the tender that was issued when outsourcing the parking contract [do you have this, if so exhibit the relevant extract].

      8. The Claimant is by far the smallest operator at rail stations. It is interesting to note that other operators of rail stations do not assert that they can issue similar claims.
      Where does this come from????

    • It is not open to the C;ao,amt VCS Ltd as a third party to attempting to morph a Byelaws matter into a 'breach of contract' claim. The Claimant has no prospects of success in bringing a statute-barred claim in respect of a station Railway car park which is under statutory control and is governed by the Byelaws, under statutory control) claim to small claims court, two years afterwards. The claim should be struck out on this basis.

      5. I request the court to strike out the claim due to the fact that the land in question is covered by Railway Byelaws concerning (among other rules) the parking of vehicles. That being the case, any parking penalty was a matter only for the Railways/TOC to lay before Magistrates Court within 6 months of the event.
      is this duplicating now? Should I take this point out? Yes
    I was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time and cannot be liable as its registered keeper

    • Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the relevant time, concerned,I was not driving it and there is no evidence that I was - of the driver and as this event occurred two and a half years ago, it is impossible to expect me, as keeper, to recall who might have been driving. The Claimant has not provided me with any evidence to show that I of who was the driver. However, it has seen fit, knowing that I deny being the driver, to send me a multitude of aggressive chasing letters which amount to , photos or otherwise however I have continued to receive unwarranted harassment and now baseless litigation, which has resulted in significant alarm and distress to myself. It is of course for the Claimant to prove its claim, and this includes showing that I was the driver.
    • It is incorrect to assert that I am obliged to name the driver, and that if I do not then I should be liable as if I was the driver. POPLA’s Lead Adjudicator Henry Gleenslade, experienced Counsel, states in its 2015 Annual Report (under the heading'Understanding Keeper Liability') that there is no presumption in law that a keeper of a vehicle is its driver, and keepers have no legal obligation whatsoever to disclose the identity of the driver to a private parking company. A copy of the relevant extract of the report is at page x of RH1.
    • At the time of the parking event in 2014, the insurance for the vehicle included [an additional?] two named drivers,people, including [or plus???] myself, to drive the vehicle. I confirm that all [or both?] of the named drivers did regularly use the vehicle. They were all family members. Other individuals were of course able to drive the car if the terms of their own insurance allowed it. Exhibited hereto and marked at page x of RH1 is a copy of the insurance policy showing the named drivers for the period in question.
    • I have reason to believe that the Claimant will rely on the case of Elliott v Loake, which it will assert is authority for the proposition that a registered keeper should be assumed to have been driving his/her vehicle, unless they can rebut that presumption. I am aware that the Claimant habitually relies on this case in similar claims against registered keepers. The Claimant (and its solicitors) must know that this is an entirely inaccurate assessment of the case, because this argument has been rejected countless times in other cases in other courts. Elliott v Loake was a criminal case in which there was overwhelming forensic and witness evidence to show that the registered keeper was driving the vehicle. It made no presumption, and it did not put the onus on the Defendant to rebut any presumption, about who was driving. This claim is no different from any other – the burden of proof rests with the Claimant, not with the Defendant.
    • With the driver being unidentified, I cannot be held liable as keeper for this event and There is therefore no statutory provision or case law which provides that the keeper must name the driver, or that they can be assumed to have been the driver. Exhibited hereto and marked RH** is an extract of the POPLA Annual Report for 2015, consisting of commentary by its Lead Adjudicator Henry Greenslade, an experienced barrister in this area of the law, headed 'Understanding Keeper Liability' . It states that there is no presumption in law that a vehicle's keeper was its driver and that keepers have no legal obligation whatsoever to disclose the identity of the driver to a private parking company. The Claimant has indicated that it will rely on the case of Elliott v Loake to invite the court to presume that I was driving: however in that case there was overwhelming forensic and witness evidence that the keeper was driving and its facts in no way apply to this claim and it does not establish any precedent for presuming a keeper was the driver of a vehicle at any given time
    • There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to the harassing correspondence from the Claimant and its agents, all of which appeared to me at the time letters which appeared to be junk mail. No adverse inference can be drawn from this. my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis or liability capable of passing to a registered keeper under any applicable rule of law or statute.
    • In any event, this is not a matter where I could be held liable as registered keeper. The only provision by which liability can be transferred from a driver to a registered keeper in respect of a private parking charge is under Schedule 4 of POFA. However, the provisions of Schedule 4 apply only to “relevant land” (paragraph 1(1)(a), and the car park in question could be in any way legally liable because this is not 'relevant land' because it is land to which the Byelaws apply (under the only lawful route for keeper liability on private land, namely the POFA 2012, Schedule 4). Exhibited hereto at pages x to x of RH1 is a copy of and marked RH4 - Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Jun 17, 3:15 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    This is as far as I got, I'll have to finish this tomorrow now!


    Claimant is not the lawful occupier or owner of the land, has not shown authority to operate on the land, to issue parking charge notices or to issue and pursue proceedings to enforce such notices
    • The Claimant has not provided any documentation and relevant contract(s) with the landowner/occupier that authorise it allow the claimant to issue parking charge notices or to enforce those by issuing claims on its own or upon the landowner’s behalf. I put the Claimant to full proof of its authority. challenge VCS Ltd to provide proof of their authorisation from the landowner and not just self-generated approval. This is the sort of documentation which the Claimant should have produced at the pre-action stage of the claim, rather than late in the day, because it is core information/documentation which proves that they have standing to bring a claim.
    No contract was formed between Claimant and driver
    • The Claimant has produced no evidence of what signage was displayed the car park on the relevant date. I have myself visited the car park and taken photographs on x date and a copy of these photographs is at pages x to x of RH1.
    Assuming that the signage at the car park on the date of my visit is the same as it was on the date of the parking event, it is incapable of forming a contract. It must be capable of making, and it must have made, an offer capable of being accepted (from which it follows that the terms offered must be clear and unambiguous, and displayed in such a manner that a driver would have seen and understood them), there must have been acceptance of the terms offered (from which again it follows that the signage must be clear, unambiguous and appropriately displayed), and there must have been consideration (and an intention to create legal relations).

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 13th Jun 17, 3:21 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Byelaws are not my speciality - can any of the regulars comment on what I've said here about them? Or beef this part up?
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 13th Jun 17, 4:19 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    MadHatter752
    Thank you so much Loadsofchildren123... you are amazing. I will email you some info that I am not sure I should make public at the moment!

    Also should mention, Network West Midlands called me again today. They can't find any pics in their archive of what the signs used to say at the entrance so guess that is a dead end.

    My Court Date is 4th July... my WS has to be in 14 days before... I make that Tuesday 20th... so next Tuesday. If I am posting it I guess I should be sending it off Thursday at the latest do you think? or would Friday be ok?
    Last edited by MadHatter752; 13-06-2017 at 5:05 PM.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Jun 17, 7:22 PM
    • 51,787 Posts
    • 65,410 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I've just lost all my work on your statement.


    Much easier if you pm me your email and I'll send it to you and you can post the finished version on here. This is the second time this has happened to me today!!!!
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    You can certainly trust LoC123.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 13th Jun 17, 8:39 PM
    • 1,815 Posts
    • 3,207 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    The issue the court has to decide is whether the simple removal of signs negates the Byelaw - which is what VCS want the court to believe. Since Byelaws are in effect mini-laws then can only be removed or amended by legislation and by those with the power to amend - which is the Secretary of State on request from Centro. Centro have confirmed they are a) still in operation and b) haven't been removed by the SoS. They are always live until the enabling legislation to remove them has been authorised usually by a Statutory Instrument as happened with the 2005 amendments to Rail Byelaws.


    Four elements are essential to the validity of a byelaw:

    (1) it must be within the powers of the local authority which makes it [1];

    (2) it must not be repugnant to the law of England [2];

    (3) it must be certain and positive in its terms [3]; and

    (4) it must be reasonable [4].

    If a byelaw can be divided into separate and distinct parts it may be upheld in part even if the rest is bad [5]. A byelaw ceases to be operative upon the repeal of the statute under which it was made unless it is preserved by the repealing statute [6]. A byelaw which has not been enforced for a long period may nevertheless be relied on in civil proceedings [7].

    5 Dodwell v Oxford University (1680) 2 Vent 33; Fazakerley v Wiltshire (1721) 1 Stra 462; Lee v Wallis (1756) 1 Keny 292; R v Faversham Fishermen's Co (1799) 8 Term Rep 352; R v Lundie (1862) 8 Jur NS 640; Reay v Gateshead Corpn (1886) 55 LT 92, DC; Strickland v Hayes [1896] 1 QB 290, 60 JP 164, DC. See also Olsen v City of Camberwell [1926] VLR 58, Vict FC. In DPP v Hutchinson; DPP v Smith [1990] 2 AC 783 at 804, HL, Lord Bridge of Harwich: 'A legislative instrument is textually severable if a clause, a sentence or phrase or a single word may be disregarded, as exceeding the law-maker's power, and what remains of the text is still grammatical and coherent. A legislative instrument is substantially severable if the substance of what remains after severance is essentially unchanged in its legislative purpose, operation and effect.'

    6 Watson v Winch [1916] 1 KB 688, 14 LGR 486, DC. As to the savings for byelaws under the Local Government Act 1972 upon the reorganisation of local government see para 14. See also para 559.

    7 The Ladywell v Port of London Authority [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep 24 at 32-33 per Willmer J, citing Pells & Son v Port of London Authority (1920) 2 Ll L Rep 327.

    Halsbury's Laws of England/LOCAL GOVERNMENT (VOLUME 69 (2009))/5. POWERS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES/(5) BYELAWS AND LOCAL LEGISLATION/(iii) Validity of Byelaws/561. Byelaws must be intra vires.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 11:57 AM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Re timing of service/filing of your WS: if you delve into the rules the 14 days is not supposed to include the day of the hearing, or the day of receiving, and then there are provisions for what happens if the due date is not a working day and so on. Technically (and without looking at the rule to see how it treats non working days) I think you should be posting the docs to be received a bit earlier than the 20th.


    However, this isn't clear from the wording of the order and a LiP wouldn't be expected to research the rule, but merely to follow the ordinary English meaning of the order. If this is technically incorrect, nobody will take a point on it and I doubt BW Legal knows the ins and outs of the rule either and will bother looking it up.


    So yes, post it to arrive by the 4th and I think you can leave it til Friday if you're not ready on Thursday. Post it to the court then, but don't "serve" it on the solicitors until the 20th - email it to them. If your bundle of documents is long, you want to make sure their server doesn't reject it because the file is too large - I usually scan a bundle in batches and send each in a separate email.


    You want a nice index and the bundle must be paginated, and put the page numbers on the index.


    Are you serving documents that you aren't referring to in your WS? If so these need to be indexed and paginated separately from the exhibit. I think you are probably referring to everything in your WS so there is no separate bundle/index required.
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 14th Jun 17, 12:19 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    MadHatter752
    Could I hand deliver it on 20th to the court?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:35 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    yes but the court counters close at 2 (I think it's 2, it might be 2.30). The court building of course remains open after this, but the counter is closed - if you don't deliver before the cut off you have to put it into the postbox which is outside the front door (security staff will show you where it is). If you put it into the post box of course you won't get any sort of receipt (which you will if you hand it in at the counter).
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:38 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    New para for the end of the byelaws section (I think it ends at para 10) - I've taken this from Iamemanresu's posts:

    The Claimant may assert that the Byelaws no longer apply to the car park. However, I would dispute this. In the same way that byelaws can only be enacted by way of formal legislation, neither can they be removed or amended other than by way of legislation (I believe by way of Statutory Instrument, as was the case with the 2005 amendments to the Byelaws), and only by those with the power to amend them (ie the Secretary of State, not private parking companies such as the Claimant, or train operating companies). The train operating company in this case has in any event confirmed that the Byelaws are a) still in operation and b) haven't been removed by the Secretary of State.
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 14th Jun 17, 2:40 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    MadHatter752
    Thanks LoC123... I know my WS isn't finished yet but thinking about starting to get my exhibits together. When I am putting page numbers on... can I do this by hand or would it be better to have typed stickers.... we have a dymo sticker machine I could use... more faff but if it would be better....
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:44 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    last part of WS coming up:

    No contract was formed between Claimant and driver

    19. In making this Statement, I have assumed (although this is not entirely clear) that the Claimant will assert that the wording on its signage at the car park sets out the terms of the contract it claims was entered into between it and the driver, and which it is claimed the driver breached. However, the Claimant has produced no evidence of what signage was displayed the car park on the relevant date. I have therefore myself visited the car park in order to take a video on 20 January 2017 and to take photographs on x and x dates, at different times of day and in different lighting. A disc containing the video and copy of the photographs is at pages x to x of RH1. The Claimant has produced no documents to me at all, or any information about the claim, and so I also assume that the signage now displayed at the site (save for the entrance sign) is the same as that which was displayed on the date of the parking event (although see my comments at paragraph x below about the entrance signage) – of course I should not be expected to second guess these matters and, particularly since 2 ½ years have passed, I put the Claimant to full proof as to the size and positioning of such signs and their precise wording (the Claimant is required by its ATA Code of Practice to keep meticulous records of these matters and so providing such evidence should put it to no trouble whatsoever).

    20. The signage at the car park is incapable of forming a contract. To be capable of doing so, it must be capable of making, and it must have made, an offer, and that offer must be capable of being (and must have been) accepted. Dealing with each of these:

    20.1 Offer:
    For an offer to be made, (from which it follows that the its terms offered must be clear and unambiguous. They must also be adequately communicated to in such a manner that the offeree (in this case the driver). would have seen and understood them Assuming that the Claimant will assert that the wording on the signage was the offer (although this is not clear), my case is that the signage did not make any offer because:
    20.1.1 it was not displayed in suitable positions. There were only x signs inside the car park, and they were displayed at a height of 2.6 to 2.8 metres (I took these measurements myself, measuring from the ground to the bottom of each sign) – in particular I refer to the photographs at pages x and x which show a man of [height] and a woman of [height] standing underneath them. The only suitably lit and noticeable signs were the two which are immediately next to the entry/exit points of the car park, but these were were positioned facing away from the entrance, so that they could only be seen by the drivers of cars exiting the car park, not those entering and parking in it (page x of RH1). [there is one sign in your photos that is at a much lower height, where is this situated, I think you should mention it and say why it would not be seen – eg is it in the far corner of the car park and would be obscured from vision because during the day the busy car park would have cars parked in the line of sight of a driver?]
    20.1.2 The signs are very small and so high up that even in broad daylight none of the wording on them is legible (and indeed the signs are not even noticeable) to a motorist sitting in a car (see paragraph x below in relation to the mandatory requirement that signs must be legible from a parked car [this is currently para 20.1.8 but check final numbering]). Much of the wording is also illegible to a motorist who takes the trouble to go and search out the signs – even if one stands directly underneath the sign there are parts of it that simply cannot be read at all because the font is so small and the yellow/blue on white and the white on blue design is difficult to read (particularly if the lighting is gloomy, as it would be in poor weather or at dawn/dusk, or in the hours of darkness).
    20.1.3 The signs are cluttered and not legible. The most important wording for the purpose of this claim (the right to charge £100 and the warning that proceedings such as this claim may be issued) is hidden in very small white on blue print at the bottom of the sign, which is impossible to read. The case of Parking Eye Limited vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (“the Beavis case”) confirmed that terms must be displayed on prominent signage so that it is “bound” to be seen, particularly the right to levy a charge. The signs are also unlit (apart from one sign shown on page x of RH1, but the lighting is so far above the sign as to render it useless in assisting anyone attempting to read it) – I should draw attention to the fact that the parking charge notice to which this claim relates was issued in [month] when the mornings and evenings, when most commuters would have been using the car park, would have been dark.
    20.1.4 As for the wording on the signs, even if it were legible, it is forbidding and therefore makes no contractual offer.
    20.1.5 The entrance sign conflicts with the signage inside the carpark – at page x of RH1 is a copy of the current entrance signage, but one can see that new wording has been stuck over previous wording (underneath “This free car park….only”). At page x of RH1 is a similar sign from another railway car park under the control of the same train operating company and I believe that this shows the wording which has been covered over and was previously on the sign. I put the Claimant to full proof of when this sign was changed so that it no longer referred to the Byelaws but to “terms and conditions” on other signage.
    20.1.6 This wording on the entrance sign is also too small to be read from a vehicle entering the car park – the sign is displayed 2.15m from the ground (I measured this myself on x date and it is the distance between the ground and the bottom of the sign – a driver would struggle to read the wording on it as they entered the car park - and the only parts of it that can be read from a car entering is the larger wording (from “Marston Green Station” down to “This free car park is provided for rail users and park visitors only”). The part referring to terms and conditions (if indeed this was part of the sign on the relevant date) is not legible from a car. The sign is also unlit and it is situated directly beneath an overhanging tree and above dense undergrowth – whilst on the date of my visit to take photographs the sign was not obscured by the plants, one can see from page x of RH1 that immediately underneath the sign Japanese Knotweed is growing. This is a notoriously fast growing plant (according to the website www.japaneseknotweedspecialists.com it can grow at a rate of 10-20cms a day and can reach 3-4 metres within just 10 weeks – see page x of RH1), and the Environment Agency has described it as “indisputably the UK’s most aggressive , destructive and invasive plant”.
    20.1.7 The entrance sign also fails to identify the Claimant but only names the train operating company, and it states that free car parking is available to “rail users and park visitors” whereas the Claimant’s internal signage states that the car park is “strictly for Park & Ride customers whilst using the Rail and/or Metro”.
    20.1.8 The Claimant’s ATA Code of Practice, compliance with which is a mandatory condition of its membership (without which it could not effectively operate as a private parking company), is exhibited hereto at pages x to x of RH1. I refer to sections xxxxx on pages x, x and x…., which state [summarise what they say] – I have highlighted the relevant parts. [make sure you use the version of the CoP in force at the time of the parking event and if it’s different from the current version say so]
    20.1.9 Ironically, even the Claimant, on its own website, states that “Signage is the most effective deterrent against parking abuse and many clients find that problems are dramatically reduced immediately following its erection. We have thus designed our signage to be as visually arresting as possible and ensure that all terms and conditions are visible at the entry to and from all points within a parking area.” (page x of RH1).

    20.2 Acceptance:
    It must follow that for any offer to be capable of acceptance, and to have been accepted, the offer must actually be adequately communicated to the offeree. So even if it is held that the wording on the signs was capable of making an offer, such offer was not communicated, adequately or at all, because it was impossible for a driver to have seen and read the terms being offered. Therefore any terms offered cannot have been accepted. I repeat the matters set out in paragraph 20.1 above.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:51 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    21. As an example of signage which has been held capable of offering a contract, I refer to page x of RH1, which Exhibited hereto marked xxxx is a copy of a sign which was the one displayed in the car park concerned in the case of Parking Eye Limited vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, a case (which the Claimant’s solicitors BW Legal themselves brought to my attention). The difference between this sign and the Claimant’s signs in this case can clearly be seen. distinguishing the contrast between the Parking Eye Limited sign and the VCS Ltd signs in operation in the carpark in question. [I haven't seen your sign - if it is forbidding wording, then consider also producing and exhibiting the sign in the case of PCM v Bull et al [you'll find this on the parking prankster's blog]Relevant cases also featuring prohibitiveAs an example of singage which has been held incapable of offering a contract because its wording is ‘forbidding’ I refer to pages x and x of RH1 which is a copy of the signs in the case of parking’ signs include PCMUK vs Bull et al (Ex. ** ) and UKPC vs Masterson (Ex. **) where it was ruled such signs offer no contract a driver can accept.
    Can I use PCM vs Bull – does it apply here from Parking Prankster? It may do, I don' t know what your signage said. Your court order says you don't have to produce legislation etc (this includes case law) until the hearing itself, so no need to exhibit it. Is it clear whether I can use this now that I have provided the other photos?






    Breach of contract
    22. It is claimed that the driver breached the alleged contract because he/she parked “outside of a marked bay”. It is difficult, if not impossible, for me to deal with this allegation in light of the Claimant’s failure to provide me with any evidence of where and how the vehicle was parked.


    23. Of course, had Since the Claimant has failed to complied with its pre-action obligations pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction -Pre-Action Conduct, and had it complied with paragraph x of the Order of DJ X of 4 May 2017, further information and documents such as photographs taken by the Claimant’s operative would have been produced long ago. [do I exhibit this too?no, but take 2 copies to court on the day] by not providing any evidence of the alleged breach of contract,. I am simply unable to comment on it let alone defend it.For instance the Claimant will have photographs taken by its operative of the car and where it was parked and it will have a contract with the landowner and a record of the signage in place at the relevant time (wording, location, size etc). All that I know is that it is alleged that the vehicle was not parked in a marked bay. This sort of scenario is exactly what the Practice Direction seeks to avoid - Defendants having to "fight blind". The Claimant is a professional parking company which has so far this year pursued 252 cases against motorists. Furthermore the Claimant is professionally represented by solicitors who claim to be experienced in this area of the law (they are certainly prolific litigators, acting for several nationwide parking companies similar to the Claimant). This conduct is reprehensible and it is immoral, unlawful and contemptuous of this honourable court and should not go unpunished.



    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:53 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Disproportionate Penalty

    You need to say here how Beavis is distinguished from this case and so the penalty rule is not disengaged:
    eg. Beavis was a retail park where there was a commercial interest in ensuring a turnover of vehicles and no overstays
    in Beavis the driver accepted that there was a contract
    In Beavis the signs were clear and prominent


    etc - look at my skeleton or defence for some ideas.
    Also highlight that Beavis held that compliance with the ATA CoP was paramount, and in this case there are countless breaches (you don't have to go into what they are at this stage, and you can refer to the earlier paragraph where you highlight a few).

    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:56 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Data Protection Act breach
    24. I believe that my rights under the Data Protection Act have been breached. I reserve my position in respect of any claim or counterclaim, and intend to report the Claimant VCS Ltd to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA in 2014. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for storing for a period of some 2 ½ years and then suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £254, including the legal insult of over two years' interest, for an original (and unproven) what was apparently an unproven £60 charge. I reserve my position in relation to making a counterclaim, or a separate claim, against the Claimant for damages for a breach of my data protection rights. The Claimant knew or ought to have known that the Byelaws applied to the car park and that only the train operating company was entitled to issue and pursue any charge from the driver, and that it had only 6 months within which to do so. Its breach is aggravated by its conduct in passing my details to various debt collection agencies who have bombarded me with aggressive and threatening chaser letters, referring to county court judgments which would result in bad credit and so on, all of which I have found incredibly stressful and upsetting.



    Claimant’s disregard of the court rules

    25.
    The court is already aware of the Claimant’s disregard of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct (specifically paragraphs 6(a) and (c)), namely its failure to explain its claim in any detail and to provide core supporting documents/information. It is also aware of its failure properly to particularise its claim, a serious breach of CPR Rule 16 and to produce the contract it asserts was formed between it and the driver (a breach of Practice Direction 16). The court is also aware of the Claimant’s contempt of the order of 4 May 2017 in failing to provide a Reply to my Defence (that order having been designed to remedy its breaches and to allow me to defend this claim to the best of my ability, as is my fundamental right).

    26. I have already explained in my Defence, and now in this Statement, about how difficult this absence of cogent information makes my position in understanding and defending this claim.

    27. The CPR and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct do not exempt parties to a small claim from compliance. They bind all parties, whoever they are and regardless of the subject matter or size of the claim. I am aware that the court will not require a slavish approach and it will not disapprove of minor breaches. However, the Claimant and its solicitors seem to consider themselves immune from the court rules and believe that the court will ignore or forgive their contempt of due process, although their behaviour seriously disadvantages Defendants such as me. I have put the Claimant on notice of my intention to seek a costs order pursuant both to Rule 27.14(2)(g) and paragraph 16 of the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. In view of the Claimants non-compliance with its pre-action obligations and the Defendant’s belief that the claim has been incorrectly brought and pursued, which must be clear to VCS Ltd and BW Legal, the Defendant will be seeking a costs order.



    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


    Signed …………………….

    Dated …………………….
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I think that's it!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 2:58 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Thanks LoC123... I know my WS isn't finished yet but thinking about starting to get my exhibits together. When I am putting page numbers on... can I do this by hand or would it be better to have typed stickers.... we have a dymo sticker machine I could use... more faff but if it would be better....
    Originally posted by MadHatter752
    It doesn't matter - the neater it all is the better, so you could do, but as long as handwritten numbers aren't illegible it's fine.
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 14th Jun 17, 3:02 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    MadHatter752
    Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

    I am so appreciative to you. I can't believe that there are people like yourself and others on this forum who are willing to spend so much time helping others, with nothing to gain for theirselves. I am forever grateful to you all, no matter how the case ends.

    So what's left for me I guess is just to go through it and fill in the gaps and sort everything.

    I have had an email back from the Court this morning confirming they will put my email of yesterday (the one you drafted for me) in front of the DJ so guess I should wait this out.

    Did you see my email by the way? It means I will need to make a few changes to the WS but I will post a final draft before I print it all off and send it.

    Any further thoughts regarding the Council's evaluation of the signage? Apologies if you have already mentioned it somewhere!!!
    • MadHatter752
    • By MadHatter752 14th Jun 17, 4:39 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 114 Thanks
    MadHatter752
    Print this one out and add it to your pack

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/railway_byelaws_at_sandwell_and#incoming-875363

    Highlight this bit

    2. There are no car parks at this location to which WMCA believe the
    byelaws do not apply


    Add that you have a reasonable belief that Byelaws apply throughout the CENTRO network as indicated in the tender that CENTRO issued when outsourcing the parking contract.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    IamEmanresu - I am looking for the evidence of byelaws applying as indicated in the tender offer as you suggested we use this.... do you have it?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 14th Jun 17, 6:43 PM
    • 1,756 Posts
    • 2,871 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Did you see my email by the way? It means I will need to make a few changes to the WS but I will post a final draft before I print it all off and send it.

    Any further thoughts regarding the Council's evaluation of the signage? Apologies if you have already mentioned it somewhere!!!
    Originally posted by MadHatter752
    I did reply, didn't you see it? That email raises an interesting question.
    I'll look at the start of the statement in relation to the other thing, but in the morning.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

254Posts Today

1,458Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Nice debating with (all but the rude ones) of you. Bedtime for me now. Goodnight #bbcqt

  • RT @kevmthomas: @MartinSLewis It was a comment you made about the referendum being a binary choice on a non binary issue that helped me rea?

  • To clarify this. Cameron's gamble that having a stark vote'd mean his team won. He gambled wrong (that's not a stat? https://t.co/NSCT3aKvGS

  • Follow Martin