VCS Letter Before Claim - CASE DISMISSED

Snakes_Belly

Lets see the contract when you can upload it. 

 https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3643002,-2.258124,3a,75y,221.41h,85.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYDRB8k1OMSP05fNP4106Jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en-US

From the approach on the ring road above the signage is not prominent. Driver is on ring road with double yellow lines. There does not seem to be much signage in the car park. These images are from August 2018 This is how the signage would have looked as you were approaching from the left.

There is also quite a bit of random signage which makes it more difficult for the motorist to process. 

What was the purpose of the stop?
 

Umkomaas

Turnip00 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I made the mistake of thinking that the Codes of Practice carried some weight. They are not worth the paper that they are written on. Hopefully the new Code of Practice will carry a lot more weight.

Judges tend not to pay much attention to the Codes of Practice. They focus more on the contract.

So if the contracts states they will adhere to the COP but haven't,  in my black and white world, they have voided the contract.  It doesn't seem right that you can pick and choose which parts of a contract apply. 

Well the Supreme Court in Beavis put some weight on compliance with the Code of Practice, but Judges up and down the country have not picked up significantly on this. But to be fair to them, I've not seen many cases where the Defendant has fought their corner on this. 

You have the opportunity now if it gets to court - if you've put this into your Defence, counterclaim or WS, so you will need to put your 'black and white' case across to the Judge.  While you will get moral support for your point of view here, it's the Judge you will need to bump your gums with. 

D_P_Dance

So if the contracts states they will adhere to the COP but haven't,  in my black and white world, they have voided the contract.

Voided or breached?   Would not it be fun if someone counter claimrd  for BOC? 

Snakes_Belly

D_P_Dance said:

So if the contracts states they will adhere to the COP but haven't,  in my black and white world, they have voided the contract.

Voided or breached?   Would not it be fun if someone counter claimrd  for BOC? 

But according to the OP this contract has not been signed by any party.  Could be just a copy that was sent to the landowner. 

I have mentioned that I have a copy of DRP's web page saying that they operate on a no collection no fee basis. He has letters from DRP and Zenith (also DRP) and that should be enough for abuse of process but I don't think that OP understands the implications. 

Turnip00

I'm still trying to get my head around all of this. I was planning on the pofa route until you explained how that could/would work out. 
I need to do some reading on the abuse of process. 
There are  a few avenues I can go down from the sounds of it, you've definitely given me some work to do.....knowledge is power. 

Snakes_Belly

Abuse of process relates to these £60.00 add on costs for debt collection. It is inflating the claim with costs that in your case do not appear to have been paid by the Claimant. Reason that DRP and Zenith work on a no collection no fee basis. So if they don't collect there is no cost to the claimant yet they will add on £60.00. This in itself is unlikely to get your claim dismissed but it will help. 

Signage is important and that signage does not look enough to form a contract between yourself and the claimant. The driver could hardly stop on double yellow lines to read the sign. There are also a number of random signs non related to parking so too much to process as you are driving.  
 

Redx

Abuse of process is about additional charges like debt collection , typically £60 or £70 added on as double recovery , nothing to do with defending the claim , but to do with the charges claimed, sometimes these are dropped when queried or the court tells the claimant to drop that part of the claim , which only matters if you lost in court

Concentrate mainly on how to defend on the assumption they can correctly imply who was driving and the extra charge is struck out of removed

Snakes_Belly

See DRP Web page. DRP and Zenith are the same company. You have copies of your letters. That is pretty strong evidence that they have abused the process irrespective of the recent court case. 

Turnip00

I had notice that the address was the same on the correspondence. 
In hindsight I should have dealt with the matter immediately,  but like I've mentioned in early posts, I wrongly believed that ignoring was appropriate.
Feeling much more confident about this now. Thanks. 

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly said:

See DRP Web page. DRP and Zenith are the same company. You have copies of your letters. That is pretty strong evidence that they have abused the process irrespective of the recent court case. 

As Basil Brush would say .... BOOM BOOM