Albert street car park birmingham

Coupon-mad

I have given my witness statement to the court

You've already filed & served it to the court & VCS then?

Coupon-mad

U414830 wrote: »

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/13s5rvqb7w0snpm/AABDBJrpxH0RAuKWVqNjgRy7a?dl=0

Isn't this a defence not a WS? You also called them Excel whereas your Claimant is VCS?

I see nothing about:

- the fact the signs say 'managed by' Excel on one pic, and VCS on the other.

- the usual Albert Street list of the cases struck out/discontinued due to the above, such as VCS v Zozulya

- the usual Albert Street pictures of signs with Excel on them, proving that VCS did not manage this car park uninterrupted from 2010.

- the fact that the PDT tickets issued had Excel's name on it, so the contract at the machine was only with Excel, not VCS.

- the fact they've quoted the new IPC CoP to try to excuse the fake added £60, yet I doubt the parking event was after that CoP?

- the fact that at #8 they've said the Claimant is the leaseholder (untrue)

- the incorrect out of context quote from Roch LJ in Vine.

- the fact that these old machines are known to fail and putting in '08' may well NOT have been the driver at all, but keypad letters failure, like in the QQ case in the Parking Prankster's blogs.

You'd have found all that out from other Albert St cases, to copy from, by doing this:

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could have (and still should) search the forum for Kumari and read what to say about that and Vine v Waltham Forest, etc. This has been done before and you can copy it into a skeleton argument.

I really wanted you to copy what we already have done here several times over but I'm not seeing any of it in your WS.

This one is recent (not a WS but a defence) and has much of what you needed to know:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75941767#Comment_75941767

And here's Lop5's case where Johnersh (a solicitor) and I pulled apart their WS and where their incorrect citation of Vine, plus the quoting of the new IPC CoP (lying about what the CoP said at the material time) is all exposed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5957661/defence-assistance

Here is how to win such a case in court (this one was by Excel but had shown Excel/VCS signs like in your case, where VCS have shown VCS and Excel signs):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75881977#Comment_75881977

I pointed the judge to the 2 confusing and conflicting signs provided by the Claimant, one saying the carpark was run by Excel and the other says VCS. Kapa could not explain this.

I brought up that Excel had not produced their contract in court. Only a self written WS about their having a lease. I then pointed out that their WS stated that Excel (Client) had appointed the Claimant to manage the car park. Therefore the Claimant must be VCS so why is Excel bringing the claim. That caused a bit of a stir.

After a very long summing up the judge said he found me to be an honest and credible witness who had maintained the same, first-hand account all through the process about having paid the tariff and that the claimants evidence was solely an unsigned and unverified PDT machine printout. Their WS was a second-hand account and with all the inconsistencies bore no weight in his judgement.

You can get more pics of Albert Street signs with 'Excel' on them, from the Parking Prankster's blogs where he has illustrated them with the signs with Excel on.

I think if you've submitted a WS with none of the above, you desperately need to put a skeleton argument together to rescue all this.

U414830

Hi coupon mad I did include photos from parking prankster about Albert Street plus the following.

12. The entrance and exit signs both have the Excel parking logos and the payment ticket from the pay and display machine has the same logo so alleged contract is with Excel not VCS. Email received refusing my initial appeal was from excel parking. If the occupant is Excel and the signs and tickets are Excel then VCS must as requested provide proof that the deed has been assigned and VCS have legal standing.

U414830

9.The ANPR wouldn’t have recorded a vehicle with the registration 08 so the pay and display ticket should not have been issued. Failure to make a full payment (inputting of coins into the pay and display machine) would have prevented an issue of a payment ticket so why allow an incomplete VRN entry to issue a payment ticket other than entrapment. The claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant could only form a contract with Excel Parking LTD, not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. This is further confirmed by the email correspondence by Excel Parking. The claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim.

U414830

13. I have requested a SAR from both Excel parking and VCS to provide proof of their contract with the landowner that authorises the issuing of penalty notices to customers who have paid to use their car park/land. I’ve sought clarification as to whom I entered said contract with as even at this late stage it is ambiguous, unclear and in breach of being a contract because of the lack of transparency. This information has not been received and is in breach of data protection act.


14. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorization from the landowner or Excel parking to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation as a third party. This information has been requested via SAR but has not been supplied.

15. Should the claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim then the signage at the entrance to the car park and in and around the car park must have been unclear, insufficient and/or confusing to the vehicle driver. Excel parking and Vehicle control services are two different legal entities see exhibits vat details.

16. Sign at the entrance to the Albert Street car park said that Excel Parking Services Ltd managed and controlled that car park, this is a 24 hour Pay Car Park, not pay and display, and it contained a lot of information about the consequences of drivers non-compliance. Clearly, Excel Parking Service Ltd claim to be a landholder of Albert Street car park, not the Claimant, Vehicle Control Services Ltd. The car park is no longer operational and hasn’t been since approximately July 2018 putting the Defendant at a disadvantage to recover further evidence.

U414830

18. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore clear that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the motorist.

19. Terms and Conditions display by the ticket machine was with a large logo of Excel Parking Services Ltd.

20. Terms and Conditions display contained information that by remaining at this car park the driver was entering in to a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd;

21. Terms and Conditions display contained information that the only valid Pay and Display tickets were with Excel logo;

22. Terms and Conditions display contained information in small font that in case of breaching those terms and conditions, Vehicle Control Services would collect the registered keeper's details data from DVLA;

U414830

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/13s5rvqb7w0snpm/AABDBJrpxH0RAuKWVqNjgRy7a?dl=0

U414830

Hi Coupon mad, some but not all of the points you raised were included. I was pushed for time and hoping to get feedback before finally handing to court. I hope it's enough but I will put together a skeleton argument.

U414830

Hi coupon mad please see my previous posts

Coupon-mad

OK, looks a lot better than the linked pages you showed, thank goodness!

Notice that the so-called 'witness' joined the company just months ago, is not a witness to the events & facts at all, and will not turn up themselves so all of this must be objected to by you, when you get your chance to speak.

Also the fact they have cited the latest IPC Code of Practice (A VERSION THAT DID NOT APPLY ON THE EVENT DATE) to try to excuse the fake £60 that the POFA, the Beavis case and the Consumer Rights Act expose as unrecoverable. This cannot be added because that is charging twice for the same template letters regime the 'parking charge' is designed to more than cover.