VCS Lose Humberside Airport Stopping Court Case

trisontana

This thread on PePiPoo (post#111) details yet another VCS shambolic court case. :-


"VCS COUNTY COURT CLAIM FOR STOPPING AT HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT"

I like this comment from Umkomaas:-

Just like 95% of other cowards who bring about these cases while hiding behind their desks, paying peanuts to the likes of Mr Wilkes to do their dirty work for them, with little chance against a well prepared and knowledgeable Defendant.

Jetslick

Props to the defendant on their preparation and ultimately winning the case. That detailed report of the hearing was a fascinating read. VCS were rightfully put in their place.

Not sure about their username 'Babyshark' though *groans*.

Umkomaas

Jetslick wrote: »

Not sure about their username 'Babyshark' though *groans*.

I wonder if you also heard the festive extension - sung to distraction by my granddaughters!

Santashark da da da da
Reindeershark da da da da
Helpershark da da da da
Turkeyshark da da da da

Nooooooooo!

The_Deep

Scammer produced 54 page witness statement, signee did not turn up, hearing wasted 90 minutes of court time, all for an 11 second stop at a bus stop. Claimant tried to link it to AJH films. What a sate of everyone's time.

I hope that defendant got all his/her costs sorted.

beamerguy

trisontana wrote: »

This thread on PePiPoo (post#111) details yet another VCS shambolic court case. :-

http://http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122536&st=100&start=100

Hi, cannot see that link, "site cannot be reached"

peter_the_piper

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122536&pid=1448715&st=105&#entry1448715

beamerguy

peter_the_piper wrote: »

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=122536&pid=1448715&st=105&#entry1448715

Thank you.

Well well, a clueless Wilkes V a Wise Judge.

After all the spankings in court, VCS still trying to scam the court about CPS v AJH films. Such incompetence by VCS

Shame on Renshaw-Smith for such stupidity. But do carry on Simon, we all deserve a good laugh

Coupon-mad

Nice result - another one bites the dust!

And the OP was grateful to pepipoo forumites, many of whom also post here, of course!

I am certain I would not have got the result if it was not for the help and support I received on this forum.

I will try to summarise as best as I can. The hearing did take around 90 minutes and a lot was discussed. Given the amount of time and effort I have given the matter over the past few months, I felt as prepared as I was going to get. VCS were represented by a "Mr Wilkes". To be completely honest, I found him a bit odd and socially awkward which did lift the burden of potentially feeling intimidated by him.

After the Judge explained how the hearing was going to work, Mr Wilkes started waffling on. It was just that, a load of waffle. He was ill prepared. I don't think he had read anything. If he had, he certainly hadn't retained a lot of it. He mainly spent lot his time trying to pursuade the Judge of my liability under CPS v AJH Films Limited. It seemed fairly obvious to me that the Judge wasn't buying it, but I felt it was too early to get confident. The Judge asked him for a copy of the CPS v AJH Films case but he could not provide it. I had already rebutted CPS v AJH films and annexed the Excel V Smith appeal to my witness statement.

Mr Wilkes then moved onto mainly signage creating contract and the reasonable assumption of me being the driver and therefore being liable. Mr Wilkes had some difficulty in locating on the site plan where the alleged contravention took place on the site map. He then went on to say that there must be more than one bus stop, which wasn't on the plan. He referenced the Judge to copies of the signs at the sites stating the "terms and conditions".

Then it was my turn. I ran through the main points of my defence, mainly how the claimant was pursuing me on the assumption I was the driver. Protection of Freedoms Act not being applicable. Inconsistencies in the claimants photographs. Lack of evidence from the Claimant in that they have authority to operate on the roadway. I then got onto the claimants point of CPS V AJH films and Excel V Smith.

The claimant then spent some time expressing his discontent at my inability to identify the driver. I pointed out I had requested the CCTV that they claimed to have several times, but it was never forthcoming.

After a lot of exchanges the Judges main points on closing were that the claimant failed to evidence that they had locus. They had provided a witness statement from Humberside Airport where it was confirmed that they are authorised to act in connection with parking, but the witness statement was vague and it didn’t evidence the extent of the site that they are allowed to operate. The judge pointed out that the claimant did not provide a redacted copy of their agreement with Humberside Airport, therefore the Judge was not happy they had relevant authority to impose charges or pursue them. The Judge, after taking into account my comments, witness statement, production of car insurance documentation showing other persons insured to use the vehicle etc, was happy the on the balance of probabilities, I was not the Driver. He then went onto that the burden of proof of the driver was placed on the Claimant and that they had failed to provide that proof. He added no keeper liability under Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. He then went onto Law of Agency and that he just didn't agree with the Claimants comments.

He then went onto Obiter points that the charge was acceptable in his view taking into account Beavis. He felt the signage was sufficient. He did mention was that the person making the Claimants witness statement and the person signing the Claim form did not attend. He felt that I was not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the claimaint properly.

The Claimaint asked for right to appeal in relation to CPS v AJH films. Judge declined.