Ticket From VCS Brookshaw Sheffield

RichieBoy56

I know you are a grammar pedant C-m, you ticked me off for ending a sentence with a preposition!


The rule for me vs myself is 'if you remove the other party then what would you say?'


Thanks for all your help and wish me luck!

RichieBoy56

I submitted my Witness Statement to the Court and VCS last Wednesday. On Friday, the last date for submissions, I received the attached Supplementary Witness Statement from VCS.

hxxps://postimg.cc/gallery/zdu5upsq/

I feel like I have been ambushed. Are they allowed to submit supplementary Witness Statement at the last minute. It doesn't give me any time to consider a response.

Your suggestions on necessary action and comments on the content of the Supplementary WS would be appreciated.

I'm beginning to wish that I'd just paid up now!

KeithP

RichieBoy56, why are you still posting dead links?

Please post live links in future. Help others to help you.

Coupon-mad

RichieBoy56 wrote: »

I submitted my Witness Statement to the Court and VCS last Wednesday. On Friday, the last date for submissions, I received the attached Supplementary Witness Statement from VCS.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/zdu5upsq/

I feel like I have been ambushed. Are they allowed to submit supplementary Witness Statement at the last minute. It doesn't give me any time to consider a response.

Your suggestions on necessary action and comments on the content of the Supplementary WS would be appreciated.

I'm beginning to wish that I'd just paid up now!

OK I have now read that TRULY DIABOLICAL decision in VCS v Ward, which IMHO as a lay person, is on a par with the equally flawed idiotic decision in VCS v Crutchley. The Judge even let them introduce new evidence by putting in Crutchley when the first instance Judge didn't have that.

However, don't you see that this WS hands you another defence point, in a way?

They've thrown the appeal cases of Ward and Idle into the mix. These have the same (no more) level of persuasiveness as your Appeal case I made you include: Excel v Smith so really this is like a game of Top Trumps and one of their cards is bad for them.

YOURS STILL STANDS.

Look at why they didn't pursue the appeal in VCS v Idle...because he wasn't the driver and they couldn't continue to appeal on the basis of 'contract' against a registered keeper. They wanted to, but could not proceed.

That's why they picked off poor Mr Ward instead. I would have been very angry with that appeal conclusion if I were him but that's another matter - he was the admitted driver.

VCS v Ward has no application and was all about a 'no stopping' roadway with an admitted driver and no conflicting entrance signs, where parking was not invited/allowed. Nothing like this case.

VCS v Idle shows VCS are on far more shaky ground v a registered keeper.

Your case is about a retail park alleged overstay, but crucially you were not the driver and the most prominent signs advertised free parking (no caveats/time limits) for the Bed Shop, where trying and ordering large items of furniture, plus perhaps getting a coffee and going into other shops in good faith can certainly take all afternoon, and a driver who saw the Bed Shop sign at the entrance cannot be said to have accepted terms on smaller signs.

Even if they did, YOU WERE NOT DRIVING AND THIS PCN IS NON-POFA.

You can show how the red card ''not a CN'' thingy was clearly a Notice to Driver by any reasonable interpretation, therefore VCS should have followed the POFA Para 8 route and not obtained your DVLA data until day 29 at the earliest, then issued a NTK in accordance with para 8.

Instead, in their race to the bottom, they pretended the notice left for the driver wasn't a NTD at all, and got the DVLA data prematurely and issued a NTK as if it was following para 9 of the POFA, but it still failed, not least due to the premature data (giving the driver no 28 day period to appeal, yet confusing him/her with a NTD card) but also due to no 'period of parking' specified in the NtK and misleading the keeper regarding the date by which they say they can hold a keeper liable, which was at least two days premature, and more if the calculated wrong date/compared to right date, spanned a weekend.

So, as keeper, you can honestly say you were:

(a) not informed what the 'overstay' even was, as the period of parking was omitted
(b) misled about keeper liability dates/deadlines as set out in statute.
(c) disadvantaged by VCS not offering the DRIVER the full 28 days to pay/appeal, in the race to get your data and try to extort the money from you instead, and prematurely, and not in accordance with with para 8 or 9 of the POFA.

When I'd read that stupid 'VCS v Ward' utter misinterpretation of Beavis crap (Jeez... if a higher level Judge can't distinguish that 4 seconds breakdown case from Beavis (or Crutchley, where he stopped to pick his son up) then God help our justice system)...

...anyway, when I'd read that drivel, I also re-read your thread.

I have a question:

How long is this alleged overstay as you covered that up on the NTK, or can you honestly not tell from the 'not a NTD' and the NTK?

And, I suggest for confidence in your case, re-read these posts, some of which are by you:

45
54
73
81
139
180

...all of which help to set out your defence in clear terms. TIME TO RE-FOCUS.



P.S. - re those £60 added 'costs': Don't forget to print out the page from DRP's website where it says they charge NOTHING for debt collection (no collection, no fee) and take that with you if the case goes a bit badly - you can then throw the last throw of the dice by showing that there has been no expenditure of £60:

https://www.debtrecoveryplus.co.uk/pcn-collection/

''We offer a 'no collection, no fee service', therefore our growth has been achieved by making successful collections, not by charging upfront fees.''

...and the Beavis case is the authority to support the argument that - apart from court filing & hearing fees of fifty quid - ONLY the parking charge (£100 in this case) is recoverable, because the costs of the letters are already absorbed in the parking enforcement business model. That was discussed in Beavis when they were talking about it not mattering that the majority of the £85 was profit (the rest being the minimal costs of letters).

A PPC can't then pretend those same letters also caused a loss...as well as profit?! That is double recovery and the POFA disallows it.

RichieBoy56

Well I had my day in court last Friday and I WON!.

Thanks to everyone on here who assisted along the way. Particularly C-M who convinced me to go with more than one argument.

Briefly, Mr Wilkes was attending on behalf of VCS. That's a good start I thought. Mr Wilkes sidled over to ask if I was prepared to negotiate a deal. I declined; another good sign.

In the court Mr Wilkes status was questioned but the Judge didn't seem to get it and stated that it was his discretion to allow Wilkes to represent.

A long discussion on Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ended in the Judge not accepting the argument. He more or less said that the wording would not make any difference!

The Judge then questioned Wilkes regarding some issues that he had with their claim. First was the contract. The Judge decided that the contract that VCS had to operate on the site only lasted for one year and no contract was in place at the material date. The Judge then moved on to signage and decided that any driver arriving at the site would be faced with a large sign stating 'THE BED SHOP - FREE PARKING'. There was no sign at the entrance to indicate that VCS had anything to do with the site.

So, the claim failed on the last two points. I was awarded £99.50 for expenses. I did not press for costs.

Snakes_Belly

Well done Richie. :T

Umkomaas

Excellent result Ritchie. :T

The Judge decided that the contract that VCS had to operate on the site only lasted for one year and no contract was in place at the material date.

Well, if a Judge has determined that I would make a formal complaint to the DVLA that VCS have acquired your personal data from the DVLA without 'reasonable cause' (use those words) as they had no contractual authority to operate on the land at the time of the parking event.

Ask the DVLA to open an investigation into your case and any other cases for the same parking location where VCS has incorrectly acquired personal data and pursued motorists when they had no reasonable cause to do so.

Make it clear that their lack of authority was determined by a Judge in the county court.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk or KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

The_Deep

Also alert the local papers, suggesting that anyone who has paid may be dur for a refund, and inform Trading Standards.

Coupon-mad

Yay - another one bites the dust!