Defence to VCS - please help and advice/proof read

jonesthebones

This is what I have so far
The format is better on word where i have written it so please excuse that.


In the County Court at
Claim No. XXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Services (Claimant)

and

XXXXXXXX(Defendant)


WITNESS STATEMENT


I, XXXXXXXXX, of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, will say as follows:

I am the Defendant and registered keeper of the vehicle in this case. I am unrepresented with no legal background or training and have had no previous experience of county court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the correct way, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.

Attached to this statement is a paginated bundle of evidentiary documents marked Exhibit HC1 to HC14 to which I will refer.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Claimant asserts that my vehicle parked in a restricted/prohibited area.

3. Before I describe what happened on the day that my vehicle was parked in the Siddals Road Public Car Park
(“the car park”), I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
a. Neither I nor the driver breached the terms and conditions of parking.
b. My vehicle was not parked in any reasonably visible restricted/prohibited areas.
c. The location appears to be set up - whether deliberately or negligently - to catch out motorists, given that it is divided between two companies that are both owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith; the first company being the Claimant 'VCS' and the other being Excel Parking Services Ltd ('Excel'). There are no clear demarcations between the areas, allowing one of Mr Renshaw-Smith's two companies to set out to penalise honest paying drivers who inadvertently pay the other sister company at the adjacent machine.

4. On the morning of the 12th of December 2018, the driver drove into the entrance of the car park in question. They instinctively turned right straight away, following the rules of the one-way sign (Exhibit HC1 and HC2) on the wall in front of them, and parked into the first available space.

5. They then looked for the nearest ‘Pay and Display’ machine (Exhibit HC3), and purchased a ticket for £3.50 which meant my vehicle could remain parked for 12 hours within the car park, specifically between the hours of 08:56AM and 20:56PM (Exhibit HC4), and they displayed this ticket in the windscreen (Exhibit HC5).

6. They returned to the vehicle at around 15:00pm after a long day and found a red/black envelope impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'(Exhibit HC6 and HC7). They opened the document and were directed to a website ‘https://www.myparkingcharge.co.uk’ where they found photographs of the vehicle from the Claimant, and an explanation that the contravention was for parking in a restricted/prohibited area (Exhibit HC8).

7. Despite having a valid parking ticket displayed, they re-checked the various signage displayed in all areas of the car park. Under closer inspection, it became apparent that signage for 2 different companies were present within the car park. These 2 companies being Excel Parking Services Ltd (the company of which the driver purchased the parking ticket) and Vehicle Control Services Ltd (the Claimant).

8. None of the signs stipulated that a particular area is designated for one company or the other. Therefore, it has to be assumed that any bay within the Siddals Road car park can be used. A driver cannot clearly distinguish which bays are for which customers.

9. At the entrance of the car park, there is a one-way sign requiring drivers to turn right, then there is a wall opposite the first spaces, and next to it a Pay and Display machine which produced a valid ticket authorising a parking licence from Excel. This machine and the one-way sign, as well as a private land sign from Excel and a private land sign from the Claimant, are all on the same wall (Exhibit HC9).

10. The details of the contravention assert that my vehicle was parked in the Bounce Revolution car park. However, the Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant did not have the authority on the material date, to issue charges on this land in their own name, and that they have no right to bring any action regarding this claim.

11. A small portion of the Siddals Road car park is apparently reserved for customers of the Bounce Revolution trampoline business and it is understood to be the case that VCS patrolled this little section. The rest of it was patrolled by Excel. The trampoline business officially closed down on the 9th of December (Exhibit HC10), a few days before this parking event and the Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority flowing from the landowner on the material date, and must show the court how they could enforce terms that were void for impossibility, offering a licence only to 'customers' of the (by then closed down) business.

12. The Bounce Revolution trampoline business remains closed to this date.

13. Upon recent visitation to the site, it appears that Mr Simon Renshaw-Smiths’ other company ‘Excel’ now retains all jurisdiction to patrol the car park on its own. All signage that belonged to the Claimant (Exhibit HC11) has now been removed, and new signs from Excel in place (Exhibit HC12, HC13 and HC14).

beamerguy

And if you have not seen this already ...

VCS .... ABUSE OF PROCESS

CLAIM FROM VCS IS STRUCK OUT

Caernarfon Court
District Judge Jones-Evans
Case number FTQZ4W28
4TH SEPTEMBER 2019

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS%20Claim%20Struck%20Out%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process.jpg?dl=0&m=

The claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme court v Beavis

This case can be highlighted in all defences where the claimant is adding a fake £60 which is unlawful

Coupon-mad

Nice WS.

Now you need to add stuff about the fake added £60 and use the wording I wrote in post #14 of beamerguy's abuse of process thread. It includes that Caernarfon VCS case from last week where the Judge has had enough of VCS adding £60, going behind the findings in ParkingEye v Beavis, twisting it, and thus making their claims unjustified penalties.

Also, were you not the driver?

If not, then you must say so early on, and add in words about the hybrid PCN not following either of the 2 routes available for keeper liability. Read adambuzz14's thread for that wording and see how he made a sceptical Judge do a U turn and realise that a red card saying 'this is not a parking charge' is clearly a parking charge!

This is only relevant if you were not driving, but is a MUST to argue, if you were not, as it removes keeper liability and the charge cannot then lawfully pass to you from the driver.

U414830

To me it looks good but wait for critique from the experts, I take it you haven't received their ws yet.

U414830

Coupon mad helped me massively and has helped countless others too, her advice is golden!

Please take note and follow carefully.
Good luck.

nosferatu1001

If you were nto the driver, you ALSO need to add in abuse of process as they have breached the POFA2012 limits - they CANNOT claim more than the amount on the NtK when they are chasing a Keeper, so if you prove you were not the driver (and WS is proof, remember, and they have NO proof the other way usually) then they are limited to the amoun ton the NTK meanin ghtey claiming more than is allowed meaning, yet again, an abuse of process.

Two argumetns from one charge, IF you were not the driver.

jonesthebones

Hi everyone,
Thanks for all your feedback.
I thought it best to leave it open about who was driving
Also I will add in about the fake £60 tomorrow, using that thread mentioned.
If there is a way, when I've finished, I will link to the actual document so that the exhibits can be seen as well. I also need to add about the news articles tomorrow

Thanks guys

U414830

Hi, don't admit to being the driver if you haven't already. (maybe a good idea to edit above post)

Use Dropbox to post links to photos of documents, it is free and easy to use.

You'll be able to link their ws for others to advise then add to yours ripping theirs apart.

jonesthebones

hi everyone,
i have received their WS today. I am just working out how to scan it and i will have it on here asap.

Coupon-mad

No need, we've seen it before and already demolished it. No need for us to repeat that and read the whole WS again as it is a template from VCS citing all the usual dross.

Search the forum for a surname from a case they mention and change the default search to SHOW RESULTS AS POSTS. You'll see what I mean!