ZZPS/Wright Hassall Threatening County Court Proceedings

Ralph-y

this is part of an older thread that forum wise owls helped me with ..... while it is not all relevant to you .... you may enjoy reading :-)

The scammers that infest JLA are in cahoots with said airport as its is a (allegedly) mutual financial arrangement ....

Go back a year or so and you would win this at a POPLA appeal ..... however in the world of PPC's they can create another appeals body (the IPC) that are a (again allegedly) kangaroo court :eek: (the IPA)

you therefore can (after reading the below) chose to wait it out , or in IMHO do the appeals as a paper trail.

VCS are about to try out their first small claims court case over such .... I predict that they will pull out before the trial ..... (update ---they they did pull the case with a week to go .... wonder why? )

Please do not let this put you off ..... read and understand ........

then come back with any questions




I am going to give you some more reading as, all this b@@licks at the 'Welcome to John Lennon Airport' is getting silly ....


first the one thread that all newbies must read is

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4816822

that it the forum base ........

then

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5191690

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5132921

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5192051

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5130131

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177878

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5180656

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177198

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5177258

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5110349

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5171250

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5156653

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5152822

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5131416

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5149455

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5148343

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5105940

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5139477




Do not miss this one



http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html



POPLA appeals
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62180281&postcount=15


and for those wanting to know about debt collectors

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=4816822 POST #4

and this one http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=5161978 posts #12 and #13

and dont expect the landowners like PEEL HOLDINGS to do anything about it , they wont


Ralph:cool:

hoohoo

POFA, parking/not parking and byelaws are all red herrings because these would only help you if you were not the driver, and you have already declared you are. In a court, the judge will ask, 'Were you the driver?' and that will be that.

The true situation is that it is impossible to read the 66 words on the sign in the 4/10 second a driver with legal eyesight has whizzing by at 40mph. and therefore it is impossible to form a contract.Given this, it is highly unlikely VCS will chance court.

To make it even less likely, I would write to WH.

Dear WH,
I have received your letter before claim. In line with practice directions, I do not understand the case against me and require the following information.
1) A copy of the contract said to be entered into (such as a copy of the sign)
2) Whether the charge is for trespass, breach of contract or contractual charge
3) The name of the claimant
4) Whether they are acting as principal or agent
5) Whether you have the claimants written permission to issue a claim.

Please supply this information within 14 days.

This should stand you in good stead if VCS have a brain-embolism and issue charges

esmerobbo

There are actually 3 sisters involved in this parasitic scam, the vans that take the pretty pictures are from ANPR International a third sister.

http://www.anpr-international.com/

jkdd77

hoohoo wrote: »

POFA, parking/not parking and byelaws are all red herrings because these would only help you if you were not the driver, and you have already declared you are. In a court, the judge will ask, 'Were you the driver?' and that will be that.

I don't agree that they are irrelevant.

If the vehicle was not parked, then any 'contractual charge for parking' automatically goes out of the window, regardless of signage.

If RK liability does not apply, then it is for the PPC to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the RK was driving. The judge may ask the OP whether he/she was driving (don't lie!), but may instead take the view that it is for the claimant to prove this and that the claimant is using the courts as a 'fishing expedition'.

Furthermore, if the claim is made specifically, expressly and solely against the RK under statute pursuant to PoFA, and not also against the RK as presumed driver, then there is an argument that the claim, being based solely and specifically on statute which does not apply, should be dismissed at the point and the PPC invited to bring a fresh claim against the driver.

I wouldn't place enormous emphasis on the 'no RK liability' defence, as it is not the strongest defence point, certainly not in isolation, but there is no harm in including it, in addition to the issue of signage, (particularly as the alleged contract is so onerous), locus standi, consideration and 'disguised penalty'.

hoohoo

jkdd77 wrote: »

I don't agree that they are irrelevant.

If the vehicle was not parked, then any 'contractual charge for parking' automatically goes out of the window, regardless of signage.

A non-starter. The charge is for 'stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited'

If RK liability does not apply, then it is for the PPC to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the RK was driving. The judge may ask the OP whether he/she was driving (don't lie!), but may instead take the view that it is for the claimant to prove this and that the claimant is using the courts as a 'fishing expedition'.

The judge may do that, but its not something to rely on. Civil claims are balance of probabilities, so you can be sure the claimant will point that out.

Furthermore, if the claim is made specifically, expressly and solely against the RK under statute pursuant to PoFA, and not also against the RK as presumed driver, then there is an argument that the claim, being based solely and specifically on statute which does not apply, should be dismissed at the point and the PPC invited to bring a fresh claim against the driver.

A non-starter. The claim is not made using PoFA at all, it is made 'in the reasonable belief the keeper was the driver'. PoFA is never mentioned. VCS and EXCEL don't currently use PoFA.

I wouldn't place enormous emphasis on the 'no RK liability' defence, as it is not the strongest defence point, certainly not in isolation, but there is no harm in including it, in addition to the issue of signage, (particularly as the alleged contract is so onerous), locus standi, consideration and 'disguised penalty'.

Me neither, and as the OP has already stated they are the driver and the PPCs monitor the forum, I would put exactly zero emphasis on this line of defence in this particular case.

bazster

Another issue with this JLA malarkey (beyond the non-readability of the signs as proven in great detail by the Prankster and esmerobbo) is the fact that once you've reached the signs you have no choice but to drive past them onto the private roads. It's a dual carriageway so you can't turn round and you can't reverse.

By no stretch of the imagination can you be said to have entered into a contract when you were effectively entrapped so, not having entered into the contract, you can't be bound by its terms so stopping is not a breach of contract.

Guys_Dad

hoohoo wrote: »

5) Whether you have .

Please supply this information within 14 days.

This should stand you in good stead if VCS have a brain-embolism and issue charges

Is that strong enough? Should it not be "Proof that the claimants have written permission from the landowner to issue a claim. "

hoohoo

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Is that strong enough? Should it not be "Proof that the claimants have written permission from the landowner to issue a claim. "

I would ask that in a second letter if they state they are acting as agents.

aaarrrggh

Hello there. Just thought I'd come back here to say that I've not received ANY more threats from these scam artists since the last time I posted here. Thought it might be useful for anyone else who happens to find this thread.

I have since visited Liverpool airport, and have noticed they now have much more visible signs that quite clearly state something along the lines of "You will be fined £100 if you park in this area", but that certainly was not the case when I went through this situation.

So yeah, just wanted to let any lurkers or people who find this thread via Google know that they threatened me multiple times, told me they were increasing the fine and sent me 2-3 letters saying the next step is "possible court action", all for it to go mysteriously quiet when I decided to ignore them.

zoonyx

What was the last thing you sent to them/zzps/wh/whoever?

Asking out of interest for my own situation.