Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

Redx

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

Draft Witness Statement.
I have decided to concentrate on no keeper liability for my defence.


+


Always said that I was not the driver, as I wasn't.

then you should have said so in the opening paragraph above in addition to posting your WS earlier post , for clarity

it is not just a NO KEEPER LIABILITY, its a NO KEEPER LIABILTY PLUS I WAS NOT THE DRIVER set of arguments (plural)

dont expect people to know your case completely, so they comment on what they see , so those extra words in your last post would have helped if you had said so in your WS post above , its the opening statement

help others to help you, by introducing clarity

Coupon-mad

Never restrict yourself to one legal point that a Judge might not agree with.

You also need safety net futher points, i.e.:

- a mention of unclear signs (prohibitive no parking? or overly wordy signage?) and can mention Vine v Waltham Forest, and Thornton v Shoe Lane before they do.

- a mention that they are not the landowners, as well, and maybe put them to proof of where the car was or something about the contravention/no grace period?

- I'd also say in your WS that, at the hearing, you want to question whoever signs their Witness Statement, regarding the points made by them, the keeper liability matter and the parking event/signs/alleged contractual terms and breach, and landowner authority.

That's an important point to drop in (the fact you will want to question VCS at the hearing about all the facts) so you can seize on it at the hearing when VCS do not show up, and instead send Mr Wilkes (or a similar legal 'rep') who has NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE (search the forum for Wilkes VCS ROA).

Add a bit here:

3. I was not the driver of the vehicle in question when my car attracted a parking charge notice. Three people were insured to drive the car and as such I decided not to inform Vehicle Control Services of who the driver was, as is my right under the POFA 2012 and no adverse inference can be drawn. As a matter of fact in this statement, and on the balance of probabilities, I was not the driver so cannot be held liable.

And where is your evidence list, photos of signs, the Beavis sign as a comparison, cases like Excel v Lamoureaux, and Excel v Smith (APPEAL CASE, DECIDED BY A SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE) and VCS v Quayle from the Parking Prankster's case law pages, and Henry Greenslade's words about 'Understanding Keeper Liability' from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 (Google it, grab that page).

RichieBoy56

Redx
I really don't understand your post, I have consistently stated that I was not the driver.
Do you have anything constructive to add?

RichieBoy56

C-M
Thank you for your advice.
VCS have already mentioned Thornton v Shoe Lane along with Vine v Waltham Forest and Parking Eye v Beavis in their Witness Statement. Can you advise how to counter these arguments please?
Thanks.

Redx

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

Redx
I really don't understand your post, I have consistently stated that I was not the driver.
Do you have anything constructive to add?

my point was that you should not expect people to trawl through over 150 posts to find out that information , you should have stated it in your opening comments before posting your WS, so that people know from the off what the WS is based on, but you adeed little or no context , leading to a flurry of questions and posts

the fact that you have possibly stated in in several posts is irrelevant, you should have reiterated it and you didnt , leading to questions that werent needed had you clarified this point , especially as this saga has been going on for over 18 months already


if the judge asks you this question in court, are you going to admonish him/her by snapping back , "its in the big bundles of paperwork I have presented to you !!"

the regulars here are dealing with dozens or hundreds or thousands of threads and posts and members whereas you are only dealing with ONE (your own)

yes I have comething constructive to add

GET OUT OF YOUR OWN THREAD AND HELP OTHERS IN A SIMILAR POSITION TO YOU (ie:- stop taking for free and give something back , we dont see you commenting in other threads and helping people, which is very selfish)

Coupon-mad

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

C-M
Thank you for your advice.
VCS have already mentioned Thornton v Shoe Lane along with Vine v Waltham Forest and Parking Eye v Beavis in their Witness Statement. Can you advise how to counter these arguments please?

Successfully using this forum is all about the searching, not the thread.

Search the forum for:

Wilkes VCS ROA

Thornton v Shoe Lane

Vine v Waltham Forest

...and all will be revealed, written several times over for & by others in your shoes.

Snakes_Belly

VCS are citing Thornton v Shoe Lane in the context that the contract is formed at the point of entry to the car park. The car park in question in the Shoe Lane case is a barrier car park with I assume just an entry lane and with a sign which would be quite visible on entry. The motorist would also have to stop at the barrier. You need to compare the visibility of the signage at the entry to the car park in your case and a barrier car park,

In Vine V Waltham Forest the signage was obscured. You need to read this and get your head around it because this case should work in your favour not theirs. I am no expert but I do wonder if the legals at VCS have only read the initial case and not the appeal.

Both cases are available online.

Snakes_Belly

I am assuming that VCS are using the Shoe Lane case in the context of the contract being formed at entry to the car park. In the Shoe Lane case Thornton took a ticket at the barrier on which stated that the terms and conditions were stated on signs in the car park. Mr Thornton sustained personal injury in the car park.

The decision was that the offer was formed at the point when Mr Thornton accepted the ticket at the barrier. The contract could not then be varied by adding extra terms and conditions at a later point.

In the case that I am defending against VCS's sister company the car park has three entrances. One of those entrances has a sign. I did not enter the car park at the entrance by the sign. The sign is on the right hand side when entering and cars leaving the car park would block the vision. There are also a number of random, non-related parking signs by Excel's sign. There is also a mobile sign in front of Excel's sign. It's not comparable with a barrier car park. A contract could not have been formed by entry to this car park. Your scenario may be similar but you will need to do some work on the signage.

Snakes_Belly

If the car park is question is the one off Russell Street which includes a Gym and Bed Store the signage looks to be very poor from what I could see on Google maps.

RichieBoy56

Redx
The fact that I was not the driver is revealed in my first post, which is repeated at the top of every page. You did not have to trawl through over 150 posts to find this out.
I do not appreciate being admonished by some stranger on a website. You may help people (which is your choice) but I suggest that you need to be civil about it.
As for me being selfish by not offering advice on this forum, the fact that I am asking for advice should indicate to you that I do not profess to be an expert in this field.
I you are going to be a grumpy old *** then I would rather you not contribute further to this thread.
Please