VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed

saarchy

Coupon-mad wrote: »

That's in your evidence already filed, we hope?

Yep, it's my first exhibit (RMB1) in my Witness Statement. Assuming it's not required for me to print off the entire excel spreadsheet and bring it to court? Would the exhibit in my WS be enough to validate the document and it's contents?

Coupon-mad

I would bring a copy of everything to the hearing. Assume the Court has lost their copy, be ready with at least one spare of everything.

saarchy

Okay, will do. Getting everything sorted today so I can spend tomorrow going over final details/preparation.

As mentioned, I've started writing my summary of defence. This is just notes for me whilst I'm in court that I can refer to and my Witness Statement has all the necessary details. I've also outlined a few additional points relevant to the inaccuracies in VCS WS that I'll be addressing. It's still a WIP and I'll be adding more points to it as I remember them, but please do let me know your feeedback so far.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5zhaot19w3fljt/Summary%20of%20Defence%20-%20Unfinished.docx?dl=0

I've also uploaded 2 maps to Imgur below which I'll be using on the day. Map 1 is the Eastings/Northings for Fieldhouse Way from the List of Roads excel document. Map 2 is a highlighted map showing exactly where on the business park VCS are referring to in their documentation. As you can see, it's a good distance away from the actual area!

http://imgur.com/Ai5ELWh
http://imgur.com/JzXklVZ

Also, pretty funny that VCS refer to the area in question as Unit 3 multiple times in the WS etc, but on the map they've submitted, it clearly says Unit 1! Oh dear...

Coupon-mad

pretty funny that VCS refer to the area in question as Unit 3 multiple times in the WS etc, but on the map they've submitted, it clearly says Unit 1! Oh dear...

This level of incorrect evidence and the fact you are saying they do appear to have been ticketing illegally on Council land, surely means you have good prospects of convincing your Judge, when you win, that punitive (higher than normal) costs for a 'wholly unreasonable and vexatious' claim, is in order. Hope so.

You have repeated 'made all reasonable' in point #5.

I would add here in #6:

the WS from VCS states the Business Park has links to the Motorway network which is a stretch of the truth and gives away the writer's absence of any personal knowledge, [STRIKE]given the nearest main road is the A404 (500m away) and[/STRIKE] the M40 is almost 3 miles away, and not within the County of Nottinghamshire.

And I would remove #1 where you talk about council penalties/bus lane fines, as these are they are completely irrelevant.

Your point #10 needs to distinguish your case from the Beavis case much more definitely, here's one written this week, where for you I have altered xx.2 to try to make it fit for your skeleton argument:


Failure to set out clear parking terms - ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 distinguished

xx - The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, insofar as the Court were only willing to exempt a parking charge from falling foul of the penalty rule which would normally render it unrecoverable, in the context of a private land car park of commercial value, it being a 'complex' case where the driver was a visitor with no prior licence or rights to park, and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

xx.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to the primary defence, inadequate.
xx.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
xx.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
xx.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of existing residents, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

xx.2. The Defendant avers that the site that is the subject of these proceedings is public land (as evidence by the Council records) and not a site where any private operator is entitled to issue 'parking charge notices' at all. There is no 'private commercial value' to be protected by interfering with cars parked on public highway, and to issue tickets there is an offence.

xx.3 The charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye v Beavis distinguished.

saarchy

This level of incorrect evidence and the fact you are saying they do appear to have been ticketing illegally on Council land, surely means you have good prospects of convincing your Judge, when you win, that punitive (higher than normal) costs for a 'wholly unreasonable and vexatious' claim, is in order. Hope so.

I hope so too. I'm confident that my defence alone is substantial enough to win this case, but it certainly helps that VCS have submitted a trial bundle so riddled with errors & inaccuracies. I'm certainly hoping that the judge will use this case as an opportunity to set a precedent against VCS ticketing in this area and save my friends & colleagues more hardship. I know a few have court dates with VCS a few weeks after mine, with near identical circumstances, so would I be right in thinking, if I do win, that this case can then be used as potential grounds for dismissal of the other cases (or at least, a pretty damning case reference in their favour)...?

As always C-M (et al), a massive thank you for your time & help on this. You're all superstars.

Point #5 has been edited and Point #6 has been amended as suggested. I've removed point #1 as well, the only reason I included it is my old man (who used to be a magistrate) thought referencing my totally clean record early on would be good to establish a fair & reasonable profile. I think you're right though, and I could always mention this on the day should I feel the need to defend myself personally. Point #10 has been completely written as per your post and a massive thank you for providing such a in depth response on this.

I've also added a new point (#5) as I'd not included any mention of the trial bundle from VCS being late. Whilst I doubt it's going to be of huge relevance, I think it helps strengthen my argument that VCS have not acted as the most ethical company in the world.

Updated dropbox link of my summary defence - https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qmekg09id2j1h8/Summary%20of%20Defence%20-%20Final.docx?dl=0

Once you guys are happy with this (and I've triple checked to make sure I've not forgotten anything) I'm going to get to work printing off everything I need. I've decided against printing off the entire 'List of Roads' excel document given it would be 145 pages in total (only 2 lines of which are relevant). So I'm just going to print the 1 page with the relevant bit, assuming this would be acceptable to a judge?

I'm going over everything tonight with friends so I can try and mimic what tomorrow will be like and get fully prepared. Strangely, I'm quite looking forward to it.

Should I win, and should the judge award my costs (and that VCS then pay them!) is there any donation features on this site so I can show my thanks?

Umkomaas

know a few have court dates with VCS a few weeks after mine, with near identical circumstances, so would I be right in thinking, if I do win, that this case can then be used as potential grounds for dismissal of the other cases (or at least, a pretty damning case reference in their favour)...?

Afraid not. Each will have to be defended and dealt with on its own individual grounds. Your case could be referred to but it will carry no precedent. A judge won't be bound by its result.

bargepole

Umkomaas wrote: »

Afraid not. Each will have to be defended and dealt with on its own individual grounds. Your case could be referred to but it will carry no precedent. A judge won't be bound by its result.

That's correct, but it might be regarded as persuasive, especially if the other cases involve the same site, and substantially the same facts and arguments.

Rather than make a donation (which this site doesn't accept), you could spend about £30 - £50 to get a written transcript of the Approved Judgment from your case (that's the last bit, when the Judge has heard all the arguments and gives a summary and the ruling), which others can then include in their evidence packs.

saarchy

Will certainly ask for a transcript should the case go in my favour.

Got everything printed out and prepared downstairs in 3 seperate files. The only bit I think I'm missing is the original copies of the letters VCS sent to me cancelling my first 2 tickets. I have scanned copies, but not the original document. Is this going to cause an issue? VCS have already acknowledged in their WS that they cancelled 2 tickets as 'goodwill'.

I've also just spotted another error in VCS' witness statement. There's 8 PCN's they are pursuing me for in this case. In the photographic evidence they've submitted in AG3, 2 of the PCN's have no photographic evidence whatsoever (just the scan of the ticket and crudely drawn map by the parking inspector) and 4 PCN's have at least 5+ photos each with no parking sign visible within the vicinity. Only 2 of the 8 tickets have photos where you can just about make out a parking sign/warning in the distance.

I've added this point in my summary of defence and will be raising it as another concern with VCS paperwork on the day.

Less than 12 hours now!

bargepole

saarchy wrote: »

... Less than 12 hours now!

So this must be case no. D0QZ924M, before District Judge MacMillan at Nottingham County Court, 10:00am in Hearing Room 12.

Good luck, and do let us have a full blow by blow account afterwards.

[Deleted User]

Ok mate, you'll be fine. Just remember to keep it simple. I wouldn't put too much stock in the cancelled tickets. I suspect the court will rather focus on the ones outstanding.

Get a sheet of paper. Do a table. List the tickets then the page reference of C's statement or map that is said to support each one. It'll help you to quickly take the DJ to the relevant evidence and form a view/ dismiss a ticket and move on to the next.