VCS Parking Charges (3) - Resulted In County Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Ah, OK, hence you need to rely upon his rights and TBH I think you need to ask him urgently, for a second WS (one signed & dated by him, headed up with your claim number and stating he is the leasehold owner - naming him and naming the property and naming you as the authorised tenant with full rights to use the property without hindrance or harassment). It should confirm what you are saying and that you live in the property and are fully entitled to rely upon the grant under his lease, which pre-dates the parking firm's arrival and has not been varied, so he considers this is indeed a matter of derogation from grant.

Otherwise I feel a Judge might say you haven't evidenced you are authorised residents entitled to rely on that lease which belongs to a complete stranger to the court. See what I mean? I realise he might not be able to attend the hearing as a witness (best if he would) but his backing and confirmation of your unfettered right to park there in his demised bay, should certainly be filed in your evidence asap.

in regards to #3 - the number of signs mentioned in the wording does not reflect the maps of the premises, showing where the signs are to be displayed, it also states residents are to be provided a copy of a 'parking permit instruction sheet', to which we/nor out landlord have any recollection of? It also states that the management company is responsible for ensuring vehicles display valid permits, so in that case, why are they perusing the RK?

Add all of the above into your WS and maybe a bit less at the start about the actual flimsiness of the permits - point being, your view is you only display this as a courtesy and not an obligation, and certainly not under lawful threat of any penalty.

The permits are almost superfluous to your argument whereas you've put at the start a summary of almost 'excuses' as to why it wasn't displayed. Your main point should be, you have no such obligation anyway and enjoy unfettered rights to park as confirmed by the person with leasehold title and rights in that demised, allocated bay.

You can get your friend to state (if he agrees) in his WS that in fact, it is the claimant who have trespassed in his bay, because he has never authorised them to penalise his rightful tenant and he relies on the grant under his lease, which no third party can unilaterally disregard. And he has passed the rights to peaceful enjoyment of his property to you and is horrified that this company has appeared on the scene, trespassing in his bay and threatening you.

Even if you actually file this WS and his WS, plus the 3 transcripts tomorrow (a day late?) it will be better than rushing this evidence which appears to be stacking up very nicely for you if you can build on the above.

KimmyHrunt

Yes i understand what you mean.

I just feel at the moment that the key pieces of evidence here are missing i.e lease and the WS from landlord

I'm pilling everything on the evidence that we've not even got at the moment :sad:

And to confirm, when we say signed and dated, we mean printing off, physically signing and re-scanning? This is going to be the difficult bit as he's not particularly local to us.

I can see i'll have to write it on his behalf and get him to amend it/send it back ASAP.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Even if you actually file this WS and his WS, plus the 3 transcripts tomorrow (a day late?) it will be better than rushing this evidence which appears to be stacking up very nicely for you if you can build on the above.

Also, which 3 transcrpits are you referring to here?

In the example WS i used, it jsut outlined summary points, the evidence comes at a later date?

Coupon-mad

How about he emails you confirmation asap, in detail, stating what was said above, then prints off that email and posts you the original for your evidence pack at the hearing? For now, you file the email as evidence, among other evidence like photos of the rubbishy sign and the 3 case transcripts.

At least get those in and make sure your WS talks about your primacy of contract.

Remember Bobby2k2 couldn't get his lease in time either, although I was concerned about that, he still won.

KimmyHrunt wrote: »

Also, which 3 transcrpits are you referring to here?

The 3 I named and told you to read and print out, in post #80. I am concerned you appear to be losing focus on what's been shown to you so in the morning, start again and re-read everything said to you today, follow the links given, read the transcripts for your light-bulb moment (you will see why they work for you) and get the evidence to accompany a simple WS.

KimmyHrunt

Coupon-mad wrote: »

How about he emails you confirmation asap, in detail, stating what was said above, then prints off that email and posts you the original for your evidence pack at the hearing? For now, you file the email as evidence, among other evidence like photos of the rubbishy sign and the 3 case transcripts.

At least get those in and make sure your WS talks about your primacy of contract.

Remember Bobby2k2 couldn't get his lease in time either, although I was concerned about that, he still won.

HI Coup,

I'm going to meet him first thing in the morning to get a signed copy.

My defence does not reference any of the 3 cases, is that an issue?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Not at all because your defence paves the way to showing primacy of contract and those transcripts support that initial argument.

KimmyHrunt

WS from landlord signed and complete.

Now off to get them scanned, emailed to VCS and then physical copies to the court.

Do i just put the documents in a sealed envelope with the claim reference on it?

The letter from court does not specify this clearly.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

I would make it nicer than that, get a cheap ring binder ideally, or (second choice) a plastic wallet file and treasury tags, to hold it all together in order, with the evidence numbered.

Ideally add an 'index' front page as a cover sheet, claim number at the top, page numbers then what each page is.

KimmyHrunt

I've just had a though. I think VCS may not bother supplying another WS, as they sent this in Oct:

https / postimg.org/image/uu774sewj/

Does that look like their usual Witness statement for this stage of the process?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would make it nicer than that, get a cheap ring binder ideally, or (second choice) a plastic wallet file and treasury tags, to hold it all together in order, with the evidence numbered.

Ideally add an 'index' front page as a cover sheet, claim number at the top, page numbers then what each page is.

Thats required for my WS? Can't i do that a later stage when i submit my case law & evidence?

I have only submitted My WS and my landlords WS today, nothing else. My understanding was this was enough and i then present my main argument/case law (the points raised in my WS in further detail & including any evidence) in advance of the hearing or at the time?


Its so confusing all this, i can see why so many people just pay the charges. I think these PPC know whats involved in the processes and take advantage of it.

Coupon-mad

https://postimg.cc/image/uu774sewj/

No that's their particulars of claim. That is not their WS. You can see an example of a BW Legal WS in Lamilad's thread and a few others.

Thats required for my WS? Can't i do that a later stage when i submit my case law & evidence?

Well a skeleton argument is not 'required' but when you do file one with evidence (next week I expect, when you see BW Legal's WS) include a copy of your two WS again, in with the case transcripts & evidence (in case the court lose them in the meantime) and make sure that is all in a nice file with index.

Personally I would have filed the 3 transcripts with the two WS today, as advised, as they are vital and you know you want to use them and they support your primacy of contract. But no worries, BW Legal will be filing their WS late now, so you can seize the chance to then file a skeleton, with cases.

Keep and print out copies for your court file, of proof of EVERYTHING emailed to the court and BW Legal, as the latter might deny they ever got it.

KimmyHrunt

Thanks Coup.

I've been out the country back end of last week.

Two separate updates from me.

1) It turns out that there is not only me that keeps an eye on our post box. The WS from VCS came at the start/mid way through the week and was "placed in a safe place" by some other than me. I'm absolutely raging, but thats another story.

So, they've sent through a detailed WS, once which i was shocked at! They have quoted lost of previous cases in the WS:

- Elliot v Loake [1982]
- Vine v Waltham Forest LBC [2002] 1 WLR
- Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB
- ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] EWCS

95 % of the WS is them basically...

"breached the terms and conditions displayed for the mentioned car park"


2) We have received a response from the LR regarding the lease agreement. Its not exactly what i was expecting. Its simply 3 pages and a map outlining the property and the mentioned parking space. It indeed confirms:

- My Landlord is the registered owner of the proprty.
The property Register:

Date = mid 2003
Term = 125 years etc
Parties = (1) AAA Residential Limited, (2) BBB (Management Company) Limited, (3) Another single, individuals name.

Now, this is where i need to know if this is of importance. 'AAA Residential Limited' was dissolved, with last annual accounts on the end of 2005.

'BBB (Management Company) Limited' filed an appointment of Corporate Secretary in 2014 for to, yes, the current Management Company, the management company who VCS have the parking agreement with.

What exactly does this mean?

There are various other points, for example the first ticket they have no evidence of because 'that data was corrupt and photographs were irretrievable'.

Secondly, the other pictures they have provided are extremely poor in my opinion, poor in quality and to be honest, out of 12 pictures, there is only ONE image which gives a nearly clear view of the dashboard without a permit.

They have included a point of "The claimant submits that although it is not placing reliance on the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, the said Act is statute therefore the claimant has rights to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle under Schedule 4 (1) (2) (a) and (b) of the act. The rights under this paragraph applies only if the conditions specified in paragraph 5, 6 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met and the vehicle was bit a stolen vehicle at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate."

What on earth does that mean, They are not placing reliance on the POFA? Are they basically saying that they don't believe they are relying on it as they have enough evidence?


They have also included the sentence in their WS "The defendant was aware of the terms and conditions of parking on each occasion, a matter of which has been conceded. Whether or not the defendant believed he was entitled to park without displaying a permit because he was/is a resident is irrelevant."

Firstly, i do believe at no point have i conceded that i was aware of the terms and conditions. Can i do anything or complain about this to the judge as this is totally misleading?

Thank You