Help!

Coupon-mad

Gemstonelife wrote: »

The judge said they did prove their case by submitting a photograph of my car and registration entering and leaving the car park, then by sending me 3 letters asking for a crime number, which I though I had provided from the police but it was only a log number...

They did not prove their case because:

- ANPR photos do NOT prove no pay and display ticket was purchased! It is a separate system from the P&D machines, every car is caught by the ANPR cameras including those who DID pay, including those who have done nothing wrong and/or where the VRN might have been wrongly recorded by a faulty machine. They needed to show the day's list of pay & display payments made/VRNs recorded by those machines in order to show no P&D ticket was bought.

- VCS cannot hold a registered keeper liable when that keeper was not the driver. And you have stated you were NOT the driver.

I will have a look at your private message and will reply to you off-forum. It is very very late to try to rescue this for you, but I will try.

yotmon

Gemstonelife wrote: »

The judge said they did prove their case by submitting a photograph of my car and registration entering and leaving the car park, then by sending me 3 letters asking for a crime number, which I though I had provided from the police but it was only a log number...

Believe me, the Police are very loath to actually record something as a 'crime' when they can tidy it away as an 'incident'. You wouldn't believe how many thefts are recorded under lost property !

Were you given any info on what the log no. or the flag on the PNC referred to ? It could be something or nothing, but it might just be enough to take back to placate the judge, seeing as this was the reason for the adjournment.

As Coupon Mad has stated, Excel don't do keeper liability, so by gaining evidence to show you were not at the location on the day would be very beneficial. - There's more than one way to skin a cat !

Coupon-mad

Just a quick hello to VCS and BW Legal...! :hello:

:whistle:

Gemstonelife

HI EVERYONE I GOT MYSELF LOCKED OUT!!
BUT I NEED TO INFORM YOU ALL
THAT I WON!!!
After having a stupid blonde breakdown I got my head on straight :-
I contacted Merseyside and West Midlands police forces to try and obtain a crime reference number for the cloning of my car, only to hit a brick wall with every phone call and personal appearance at 2 of my local police stations. NO CRIME NUMBER WILL BE GIVEN IF YOU DISCOVER YOUR CAR HAS BEEN CLONED! A crime had not been committed against me so no crime number. This is what the VCS solicitor asked me to obtain.
I gathered evidence from my hairdresser in e form of a photograph of her appointment book plus a witness statement confirming I was at her salon AND luckily enough my dad keeps a diary and he had written he had collected me to go shopping. I submitted all this including a witness statement (kindly written for me by a fabulous lady from this forum coupon-mad xx)
I returned to court 1st February, the judge was the same as previous and when I walked in I could tell he was impressed with my evidence pack. The judge went through the evidence and asked the VCS solicitor how he wanted to proceed and he just shook his head saying 'she has proved she wasn't the driver'. JUST LIKE THAT! I nearly fell off the chair. The judge then read through the entire case and then asked me if I had anything to say 'yes please, I would like to state that for 2 years I have worried about this case, I had phone call a week before the hearing telling me that they would not accept my witness statement and I should accept a reduced amount and they will give me a payment plan, plus he could hear my young son in the background and he was really nice (whatever!) saying it seems I have enough on my plate and if I go back to court the fine will end up at £500! So due to all my stress and running around chasing my tail I would like the £75.00 court fees I had occurred written off. The judge once again asked the solicitor what he thought and his answer was 'well sir you did make that order and she did get a second chance'. Once again I fell off the chair! I asked could I reply and the judge said 'no I have this'. He then proceed to to reel off the evidence I had supplied, then all the flaws in their witness statement and his final sentence was 'and seeing your company deal with these issues day in and day out, you should of known a crime reference number wouldn't be supplied so you wasted all of our time, so I wipe the costs!'
I nearly done a cartwheel ��!♂️ but instead I went right up to the judge and shook his hand and thanked him for being understanding and wished him a great day!
I walked out 10 foot tall, it was an amazing feeling.
I wouldn't of won this if I hadn't of posted this cry for help and especially my email friend who kept me strong when I wanted to give in and encouraged me to be braved and face it head on.
Thank you from the very bottom of my heart Lyn xxxx❤❤

Gemstonelife

P.s... my daughter attended with me and she knows I waffle! So when the judge asked me if I wanted to speak I felt her crying...
BUT. Hahaha
When we walked out she said 'oh Mum I was so proud you was like Elle Woods off Legally Blonde!' Haha
Couldn't of said it better myself ��

Redx

a great result for you (and for coupon-mad too)

I am really happy this worked out for you and that they saw sense at last

believe me , any regulars reading this saga will be happy for you as well, you are NOT alone !!

best wishes

Coupon-mad

Well done to you for seeing it through despite BW Legal ringing you up and trying to tell you that you would lose and that the WS wouldn't be read. Of course the Judge read it and the scales fell from his eyes!

I love your story, this one was fun. Especially getting the £75 costs previously granted to VCS, wiped out.

Redacted WS here, this grotty car park was the infamous Albert Street Birmingham:

In the County Court at xxxxxx

Case No: Cxxxxxxxx

In the Matter of:

_________________________________

Vehicle Control Services Ltd

Claimant

-v-

Gemstonelife's name

Defendant

_________________________________

I am xxxxxx xxxxxxxx of xx, xxxxxx xxx xxxxx, xxx xxx and I am the Defendant in this case. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge and I would like the Court to be aware that I am prepared to swear on oath at the rescheduled hearing, in support of my consistent defence that I was not the driver and further, that this was not my car. I summarise the facts as follows:

1. This claim arises from a parking charge notice (PCN) issued by the Claimant two years ago, with black & white photographs of a vehicle appearing to bear the same VRN as my car.

2. I appealed immediately, so this Claimant (VCS) was aware as early as January 2015 that:

(a) I have never visited the car park mentioned in the PCN. I have never been to Birmingham at all.
(b) I was the keeper of the vehicle which lawfully has the VRN: xxxxxxx and I knew for certain that, not only was I not the driver, but the car shown in the photographs could not be mine.
(c) I reported the vehicle to Merseyside Police because if the photos had captured the VRN correctly, then it must have been cloned. VCS were informed by email and I informed them that a nationwide ‘flag’ was marked against my VRN in case of further reports of the cloned vehicle.

3. This claimant has shown in evidence, a letter dated 16.2.2015 where Matthew Foster of VCS asked me for ‘the Police reference number you were given’. I provided this ref: ‘xxx’ and reaffirmed that the report was made to Merseyside Police, believing VCS might need to check or to provide their own photographs of the cloned vehicle to further the Police enquiry.

4. Moving on to late 2016, I was horrified to receive a Court Claim from VCS’s legal firm, BW Legal. I believed that my statement that I was not the driver, had never been to Birmingham and that this was not my car - which had been reported as cloned almost two years before - would be sufficient as a defence. I am an unrepresented Defendant and at the hearing I was ‘put on the spot’ for a crime number and am grateful to the Judge for the adjournment to gather my evidence.

5. Following the adjourned hearing, I contacted two Police Forces (Merseyside again and West Midlands because of the location shown by VCS in the PCN). Both informed me that when a car is reported as ‘cloned’ the action the Police will take is to give the keeper of the correct vehicle an ‘Incident/log number’ and to flag the VRN nationally. I have specifically asked both Forces for a Crime Number because, due to having no experience in such matters, I had no reason to believe the Claimant was wrong to ask for it. I was informed that no Crime Number can be given.

6. I understand this is because neither the car nor the number-plates have been physically stolen so there is no ‘crime’ against myself as registered keeper of the car which lawfully bears that VRN.

7. Now feeling that I was effectively backed into a corner, I have made strenuous efforts to provide evidence in every way I can to the court at the rearranged hearing, to support my defence that:

(a) This was not my car, and
(b) I was not the driver, so I am not liable on the basis under which this PCN was issued.

It is shown by the Claimant’s own evidence that the PCN was certainly not issued with any reliance on Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, did not include any of the mandatory wording from Schedule 4 (paragraph 9) of that Act - notably the mandatory warning set out in 9(2)f among other paragraphs - and in fact the PCN stated that the charge was being pursued on the ‘assumption that they {the registered keeper} were the driver.’ Yet VCS have known for two years that I was not the driver. I would not have taken the significant step of reporting my car as cloned, if there was any question at all in my mind about it.

8. I have collated evidence which I am attaching, to show my whereabouts that day. I am fortunate that this week in 2015 was memorable in that this was the weekend just before (a family) birthday. I now show independent documentary proof from my hairdresser - I visit the hairdresser every Saturday - and from my parents (we shopped at ToysRUs in another City that day). I was driven there in my father’s car and at all times I had my car keys with me on my keyring; I know this because my front door key is on the same bunch of keys. There was no other car key at home. My car remained parked at my house.

9. I would stress that none of this information was in any way withheld; I simply had faith at the first hearing that the fact I had reported the cloning and supplied the Police reference number - and stated clearly that I could not have been the driver - would have been sufficient. Indeed I would add that I feel as though the quest for a ‘Crime Number’ - when VCS in their capacity as a company constantly dealing with vehicles and keepers, were surely more likely than me to know that cloning is not deemed a ‘crime’ against the registered keeper of the original car - was nothing more than a wild goose chase, wasting the court’s time as well as my own.

10. In an effort to resolve this dispute once and for all, I have scrutinised the PCN and other evidence and the Witness Statement produced by the Claimant and I have observed the following:

(a) The photos are black & white so the detail and colour of the vehicle in the images is not shown, so I ask that the Claimant brings to the hearing, colour or enhanced/close up images if they exist, putting them to strict proof to determine the details of the car shown.

(b) However, I can see that there appears to be a white item, something like a blanket or piece of clothing hanging across the top of the front passenger seat. I can assure the court that I would never drive my car like this because my toddler’s car seat was always positioned immediately behind the front passenger seat and it would have been in the way, distracting and even hazardous when driving to leave any loose item within reach of a toddler.

(c) At the material time in January 2015 I had a Winnie-the-Pooh car sticker on the back window of my car and the vehicle in the exit image does not have that sticker.

(d) I have the original PCN in my possession and will bring it to the hearing for the Judge to see. I am concerned to note that the images shown by this Claimant are not reliable in any case, because the ‘back page’ they have shown in evidence is a back page from a PCN from another company (Excel Parking Services Ltd - company number 02878122).


11. This - and their conduct in putting me through the stress of facing a Claim when they knew since 2015 that I was not the driver, not the liable party - called into question the reliability of this Claimant’s other evidence, so I hope under these unusual circumstances that the Judge will allow me to point out to the court (and/or question the Claimant at the hearing about) these issues:

(a) At least one of the signs - the tall rectangular blue & yellow one - states that a driver is entering into a contract, not with VCS, but with Excel Parking Services Ltd. The latter company may or may not be the landowner (no proof was supplied and both companies are owned/run by the same Directors and owners) but either way, any contract can only have been between the driver - who VCS are aware was not me - and the company named on the ‘contract terms’ on signage and there are two different versions in the evidence bundle; one sign says VCS offer the parking contract and the other sign holds that it is Excel.

(b) The witness statement is clearly a cut & paste version which I have discovered is typical of such statements supplied by BW Legal. It wrongly states at #48 that in ‘his’ appeal the appellant stated that a wrong VRN was input. This is not the case, was not my appeal.

(c) Yet at #8 in the same witness statement, BW Legal (on behalf of VCS) contradict this and they say the driver ‘failed to purchase a Pay & Display ticket’ altogether.

(d) Yet the PCN gives another contravention, a third one: ‘parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit’ despite this not being on the list of events that can give rise in contract to a ‘parking charge’, according to the larger sign shown in evidence.

(e) Yet the ‘contract’ (heavily redacted and missing the annexed Schedules which would set out the enforcement operation, rules, contraventions and details of the agreement) only enables VCS to issue PCNs for non-display of a permit. So this appears to relate solely to a ‘permit scheme’ car park. This begs the question, is this the right contract? I put VCS to strict proof including showing the Judge the annexed ‘Schedules’ and the unredacted contract, when explaining how that contract allows VCS to issue charges in a ‘Pay & Display’ car park.

(f) I noticed that the contract expired just four days after the alleged parking event and I then noticed that the ring-binder file has put holes through the ‘day’ (10th?) on every photo in my copy of the evidence, one of which looks as if it may have read 16th. Even the screenshot of the electronic record - the pink sheet in the bundle after the appeal emails - has left the date of event (top left icon of a car) ‘closed’ yet all the other dates (16.1.15, 1.4.15 and 7.5.15) are expanded as ‘open’. I cannot tell whether this is of any significance but ask the court’s leave to question the Claimant about their conflicting evidence and Witness Statement.

(g) Finally, VCS has not shown any evidence of the ‘machine data’ they refer to, which is the only evidence that would prove a lack of payment. Clearly I am not in any position to know whether the driver of another car, in a City I have never visited, paid the tariff, or perhaps entered the VRN wrongly, or perhaps failed to display the ticket on their dashboard (depending upon which version of the contravention is to be believed). It is admitted by the Claimant in #14 as regards the function of the ANPR cameras: ‘it is upon this system that the length of the period of stay is recorded’. Not that payments are recorded thus. Every car captured by ANPR, every day, is photographed. So merely showing the camera pictures of a car is no proof of any contravention at all, regardless of the fact that I am not the liable party.

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Signed______________________


Dated __________________ 2017

trisontana

Lets take a look at this from the OP:-

I had phone call a week before the hearing telling me that they would not accept my witness statement and I should accept a reduced amount and they will give me a payment plan, plus he could hear my young son in the background and he was really nice (whatever!) saying it seems I have enough on my plate and if I go back to court the fine will end up at £500!

That is despicable behaviour from that thug at BW legal. They should be dismissed immediately . Unless, of course, that's company policy to bully and intimidate innocent people. What a nasty job to be in.

beamerguy

THE RESULT FROM THE PARKING PRANKSTER

Flawed ANPR misread causes 2 years of hell
Excel v Ms X. Liverpool. 1/2/2017

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/flawed-anpr-misread-causes-2-years-of.html

At this point Coupon-Mad stepped in and helped create a witness statement which fully explained the situation.


Confirming once again the incompetence of VCS/BWLEGAL

nicechap

What a wonderful good news story! Well done.

And to think Altarf thinks PPCs are a force for good.