VCS/BW Legal - writing defence

MadHatter752

IamEmanresu wrote: »

You should also point out that VCS are by far the smallest operator at rail stations. In fact they only operate at CENTRO/WMPE. NCP, APCOA, Indigo all operate but none think they can issue claims. Only the delusional at VCS/BW.

Thanks IamEmanresu.. I will pop something in the WS

I agree that VCS are scammers... normally I would just roll over but there is something totally wrong with what they do here so no matter how much stress it causes I wanted to challenge it.

MadHatter752

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Don't think it's worth arguing that it's forbidding signage. It offers it to rail users but then doesn't prohibit others in its wording. The small print is unreadable. I assume this is the forbidding bit. What does it say?

I can't read it either... I'll have to go back and take a closer pic... the signs are too high for me to get a decent pic but right inside the carpark at the back are some which are lower down so I'll go and take a snap of them. What is meant by "forbidding wording"?

I apologise if I'm going over old ground. What was the parking contravention you are accused of and what was in your defence?

The contravention was "Parked Beyond the Bay Markings". I'll upload my defence on dropbox and post a link. Please don't apologise, I really appreciate the help!!

Edit... here's the link https://www.dropbox.com/s/4izxbpx88k9ul9r/DEFENCE%20STATEMENT%20-%20for%20dropbox.docx?dl=0

[new para number] Firstly, there was no sign at the entrance to the car park drawing any terms and conditions of parking to the driver's attention (this is in fact a breach of the Claimant's own compulsory ATA Code of Practice, which requires there to be clear entrance signage referring the driver to the further terms and conditions displayed inside the car park). A photograph of the entrance which I took on x date is exhibited hereto marked Xxx. signage is an ‘offer to treat’ as no sign at the entrance of the carpark where the event took place which details the contract you would be entering into by proceeding into the car park as evidenced by Exhibit 2. [this para doesn't make sense. Do you mean there was no signage at the entrance?]

Also I think check the planning permission point. It's easy - Birmingham cc will have an online planning portal where you can search the address/postcode and it will list all applications and their status. It would be better for you to say there is no permission rather than put them to proof that there is (if you do the latter I'd say that almost certainly the judge won't be interested). If no planning/advertisement consent, make a complaint to the council.

As posted yesterday, there was a sign. I've phoned Network West Midlands they've raised a query for me. I've asked what the sign said before and when it was changed. Should be 10 working days which might be too late but hopefully it will come back before then.

The area comes under Solihull Council but I have done a search on their website and can't see any applications at all. However the signs do say Birmingham City Council so I've checked there and can't find anything either.

So not sure who to complain to? Also might be a daft question but what should I say to the Council to complain? Am I complaining about the signs? Is there any legislation saying they should have asked Planning permission? I wouldn't have known you would need Planning Permission for signage!

9. As for the signage inside the car park, it makes no offer of parking but is instead prohibitive. The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge and was never 'bound to' have been seen, as in the ‘Beavis’ case. These signs contain illegible small print that could not be seen from a moving vehicle as evidenced by Exhibits *, * & *, one of which is a video from the drivers perspective in a moving car entering this car park. anyone using my car would have used it early in the morning… the pcn was issued at 11am so should the evidence show lighting as at 11am? firm this up with references to the photos. How do you know the driver parked late at night when it was dark? Does the pnc specify the period of parking?

The PCN specifies 11:40am to 11:50am. I know that any driver using my car on this day would have been commuting to work, possibly parking before 8am which in October it would be reasonably dark.

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.

^^^ that was straight from VCS website... just found it funny :rotfl:

thanks

Loadsofchildren123

There will be an online complaints process on the planning portal.
It's unlawful - look at your own draft WD!!!! Reg 30 of the Regulations you've quoted!!!!
I'd thought from your draft that there was no entrance sign, so that para will need changing.

Loadsofchildren123

When you go back can you measure the height the signs are displayed at? If possible go with someone and photograph them standing next to it to give it perspective.

Add to the WS in the contract section
Since the C has failed to comply with its pre-action obligations pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and (c) if the Practice Direction -Pre-Action Conduct, 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 C 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 (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 C is a professional parking company which has so far this year pursued (x) cases against motorists (- look the number up on BMPA Website and include VCS cases as they are the same). Furthermore the C 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 C). This conduct is reprehensible and it is immoral, unlawful and contemptuous of this honourable court and should not go unpunished.

I put the C to full proof of the manner in which any co tract was breached.

MadHatter752

I've been back and taken more pics.... https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fmca3napvk3z4f7/AAB2YQ0MSlgmWevs7knkDuhSa?dl=0

link is there and also another video showing the entrance... you can actually see the signs in broad daylight so not sure if this will help my case or not but you still can't read them!

The Transport for West Midlands sign at the entrance stands at 215cm.

VCS signs within the carpark measure 218cm or one is 260cm. These were all measured from the ground to the bottom of the sign. The pics also show a male and a female for perspective. The male is 6ft 2 and the female is 5 ft 5.
I also included one sign which is attached to a lamp post.... so you can see how far away the light is... i doubt they can really claim there are lighted signs but I am sure you will let me know.

what do you think to them? thanks again

I will amend my WS with your suggestion and make the complaint to the council, I am not sure which council so might just complain to both to cover it!

Also need to mention that Transport for West Midlands came back to me yesterday regarding when the sign was changed and they said Sept 2014, the PCN was issued October 2014 so looks like the signs were changed before. I have asked for a copy of what it said before and they are going to try and provide it but I dont think that will help now. I am going to ask them to confirm it is covered by Byelaws just for further proof from them.

System

I am going to ask them to confirm it is covered by Byelaws just for further proof from them.

You have an answer from the Freedom of Information request. If you do so again, it will take a month for them to answer as that is the length of time they have. If you do it outside the FOI system, they may not answer it at all. Use what you have.

They may quote a case where one judge decided it was contract. However another judge took the simpler approach and ask VCS to prove that Byelaws did not exist on the site. Suggest that you ask the judge to put them to proof the Byelaws have been removed lawfully via the Secretary of State. Only the SoS for Dept of Transport can agree any change.

MadHatter752

IamEmanresu wrote: »

They may quote a case where one judge decided it was contract. However another judge took the simpler approach and ask VCS to prove that Byelaws did not exist on the site. Suggest that you ask the judge to put them to proof the Byelaws have been removed lawfully via the Secretary of State. Only the SoS for Dept of Transport can agree any change.

Thank you IamEmanresu.... should I put that in the WS or save it Skeleton or court?

I will be glad when this is over... it is taking hours and hours.

System

should I put that in the WS or save it Skeleton or court?

Wait till you see their WS

MadHatter752

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Wait till you see their WS

Well I haven't had anything else off them so I am not confident I will see that before I submit my own!

System

so I am not confident I will see that before I submit my own!

It's their normal practice not to send it on time so get yours in on time and then use their delay as a point against them.