VCS/BW Legal - writing defence

Umkomaas

That's IPC signage in the evidence, but if I understand correctly, the parking event took place during the period when VCS was a BPA operator.

Signage is therefore totally misleading as evidence.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

That's IPC signage in the evidence, but if I understand correctly, the parking event took place during the period when VCS was a BPA operator.

Interesting - in the Witness Statement the numpty from BW Legal says VCS were in the BPA at the time, yet this says they joined the IPC at the end of September 2014:

https://theipc.info/aos-members/v

So, it proves the WS as a pile of steaming sh...

MadHatter752

Umkomaas wrote: »

That's IPC signage in the evidence, but if I understand correctly, the parking event took place during the period when VCS was a BPA operator.

Signage is therefore totally misleading as evidence.

I am, myself, confused about this point because the Windscreen PCN clearly states they are regulated by IPC but in their WS they have stated they were regulated at the time by BPA?!

MadHatter752

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I know, but one of their other pics shows what looks like the same 'island' with a sign on that very lamppost, that's what I am saying. Their evidence suggests that very place had a sign just above your car, yet one would ask, why did the parking goon not take such a photo then, while your car was there? Because that sign probably didn't exist either...

No it does exist near the car but it's so high up.. one of the ones i mention in my WS over 2m so they would struggle to get the car and sign in one pic... or maybe they wouldnt but it would prove how redic their signs are .

Coupon-mad

So why have they not shown the sign above the car, that day?

MadHatter752

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So why have they not shown the sign above the car, that day?

Who knows.

I've obviously got my skeleton argument to do... can I mention this sort of stuff?

Coupon-mad

Yes all of it, which is why I stated a few things in the earlier post. Start by pointing out this is a WS from someone who is not only not a witness at all (he was not there, does not work for the claimant, and seems confused about which ATA the claimant was in, and confused about how many signs might or might not have been there) but who is unlikely to appear at the hearing either.

You do know about them sending a hired gun advocate, and how to contest Rights of Audience at the hearing on the day, as the first line of attack, to get the rep gagged and the claim struck out?

System

The rep will be from Elms Legal as they appear to have picked up the ball on this one (CETRO). Lots of noise and not much by way of fact.

The images are of such poor quality that there is no certainty that the facsimile signs are the ones actually there on the day. And there is no one from the Claimant to be able to speak to them. Anything said by Elms is third hand.

MadHatter752

I'm just reading through threads in order to get a bit of background on Skeleton Arguements.... just come across something... should I have dated my photos I submitted in my WS? It's too late now, it's gone, but I am thinking I can't really pull apart their dates/lack of if my own aren't dated?!

Their photos that are dated are not of the day the PCN was issued.... any photos featuring the vehicle that received the PCN are not dated.

I am confused about the whole IPC/BPA thing... can they be a member of both? Their "authority from Centro" listed as "p1 of their evidence on dropbox has at the bottom IPC and BPA?!

System

I am confused about the whole IPC/BPA thing

To get the Keeper's details they have to be a member of 1 AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) and sticks to those rules. They can be members of the two organisations but they have to show the version of the "rules" they are working to.

According to the IPC's version of the AOS, VCS joined that scheme on 29/09/2014 so were running IPC rules at the time.