early morning ticket

Fruitcake

skaart wrote: »

Their Witness statement: I have OCRd it so it will hopefully make it a more usable document for people in future to copy and paste from.

https://gofile.io/?c=Mw66Tc

I'm confused.

At point 8 they say Excel is the lawful occupant of the land who appointed VCS, yet also say VCS is their client, but VCS are wholly owned by Excel, but are also separate companies according to Companies House.

How on earth does the contract with the landowner work? Somehow it must flow from the landowner to VCS either directly or through the landowner.

For Excel to be the lawful occupant they must have a contract with the landowner. There must then be a contract between Excel and VCS because they are separate companies.
How can VCS be contracted to Excel if Excel are VCS's client?

My brain hurts.

At 15, the paralegal mentions the signage including the charges. No add-ons are mentioned and no reference to any add-ons on the signs are mentioned. Please pardon my grammar.

At 19 the paralegal admits that VCS would request keeper details from the DVLA, despite having stated at 17 that they affixed a card, now agreed by the DVLA to be a NTD, and thus breached para 9 of the PoFA.

At 27 they say the defendant was observed parked, not the defendant's vehicle. The scammers have not proved the defendant was driving.

(At 39 they refer to Para 9 of the Pofa but have previously mentioned a NTD which is covered by Para 8.) Already mentioned.
Either a NTD was affixed, which the paralegal claims happened and has said they believe that to be true, yet are relying on Para 9 here where no NTD is given.
Both cannot be true.
The paralegal has stated something that is not true, but have signed the document saying it is.

At 48, 50, 51, the paralagal refers to the word "sent" when the Pofa says "given" or "received".

At 54 the claimant has compiled with …

At 64, the paralegal refers to a contract between the Claimant and the lawful occupier. The claimant is wholly owned by the occupier, but there is no mention of the landowner. There appears therefore to be no contract between the landowner and the legal occupier or claimant.

At 69 they refer to Ts and Cs but do not specify where these alleged Ts and Cs are specified.

At 75 the scammers claim the defendant failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of private land, yet have not proved that the defendant was the driver. Only the driver could have adhered to the Ts and Cs at the site.

At 76 they state "The Claimant was entitled to erect signs with the development in accordance with their appointment by the freeholder" yet have not provided the identity of or a contract with the freeholder.

At 78 they state, "Accordingly the Claimant is entitled to a Judgment". This has not been agreed in a court of law and thus is a false statement.
They also say, "It is a matter of agreement that the instance of parking in contravention of the Terms and Conditions of the signs." Nothing is agreed, nor has it been ordered by a judge, and the sentence does not make sense so is therefore a breach of the English Language and Grammar Police Laws.

skaart

Fruitcake wrote: »

Does the bargepole guide to court answer your first question?

No it doesn't. I'm going to work on the assumption the extra evidence I intentd to use that didn't go with the WS should be sent to both parties ahead of time anyway, just in case. I'm worried about giving an obvious get out argument to the claimant though that some of these arrived so soon before the court date.

Fruitcake wrote: »

My brain hurts.

I think that at stages, even they got confused. If you can bear to delve deeper, here's the contact between Excel and VCS... https://gofile.io/?c=XBU7mi

KeithP

skaart wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm going to work on the assumption the extra evidence I intentd to use that didn't go with the WS should be sent to both parties ahead of time anyway, just in case. I'm worried about giving an obvious get out argument to the claimant though that some of these arrived so soon before the court date.

You know that all evidence must be sent to the court and claimant by the date specified by the court, right?

If you are intending to to supply further evidence after that date, then you must be prepared for the court or the claimant to object to that evidence being considered.

Fruitcake

skaart wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm going to work on the assumption the extra evidence I intentd to use that didn't go with the WS should be sent to both parties ahead of time anyway, just in case. I'm worried about giving an obvious get out argument to the claimant though that some of these arrived so soon before the court date.





I think that at stages, even they got confused. If you can bear to delve deeper, here's the contact between Excel and VCS... https://gofile.io/?c=XBU7mi

I'm picking holes in the WS and adding comments as I go. Have a look at my completed post tomorrow as hopefully I will have finished by then.

I'll have a look at the contract later.

Have you seen the thread by Loum5? He is dealing with VCS and I am wondering if you have the same paralegal as him who managed to send him someone else's private data.
He is further ahead than you and has made comments about the contract in his case that does not meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. You should have a look at his thread.

skaart

KeithP wrote: »

You know that all evidence must be sent to the court and claimant by the date specified by the court, right?

If you are intending to to supply further evidence after that date, then you must be prepared for the court or the claimant to object to that evidence being considered.

Yes I realize they can object to the additional evidence. I guess I was wondering how best to mitigate the problem now.

Fruitcake wrote: »

I'm confused.

At 27 they say the defendant was observed parked, not the defendant's vehicle. The scammers have not proved the defendant was driving.

(At 39 they refer to Para 9 of the Pofa but have previously mentioned a NTD which is covered by Para 8.) Already mentioned.
Either a NTD was affixed, which the paralegal claims happened and has said they believe that to be true, yet are relying on Para 9 here where no NTD is given.
Both cannot be true.
The paralegal has stated something that is not true, but have signed the document saying it is.

At 48, 50, 51, the paralagal refers to the word "sent" when the Pofa says "given" or "received".

At 54 the claimant has compiled with ...

Yep most of these points covered in my Skeleton, though particular thanks for spotting the claim they had observed ME parking.

Fruitcake

skaart wrote: »

No it doesn't. I'm going to work on the assumption the extra evidence I intentd to use that didn't go with the WS should be sent to both parties ahead of time anyway, just in case. I'm worried about giving an obvious get out argument to the claimant though that some of these arrived so soon before the court date.





I think that at stages, even they got confused. If you can bear to delve deeper, here's the contact between Excel and VCS... https://gofile.io/?c=XBU7mi

That contract at para 3.6 refers to the BPA and their CoP. Therefore any contract requirements must be in line with the BPA CoP not that of the IPC, otherwise the contract is invalid.

They refer to the contract at point 9 of their witness statement here.

9. The Claimant submits that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme since 15th January 2010. There has been no notice of termination and the Claimant remains contracted to enforce parking to date. The Claimant is contracted to undertake parking management activities and issue Parking Charge Notices [“PCN”] where vehicles are identified on the development in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions. A copy of a contract with our Client can be identified in exhibit FJ1


No notice of termination means the contract they have quoted is still in force which only refers to the BPA, therefore only the BPA CoP can apply.

As for the contract itself, it is between Excel and VCS which is owned by Excel.
In other words the contract is between Excel and themselves.
There is no mention anywhere of the landowner anywhere at all.

Your most important job is to identify the landowner. For a few quid you can obtain this information from the Land Registry. This is unequivocal evidence. If you have it you can destroy their case completely.
Nowhere have they shown they have the landowner's permission, or a contract with the landowner, to issue charges or take someone to court.

Fruitcake

Have a look at this thread, especially post 57, points 22 to 29.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6069964/almost-imminent-court-case-pending-with-vcs&page=3

The contract in your case has not been signed by two authorised signatories from each company so fails the requirements of the Companies ACT 2006 and is therefore not valid.
In addition, as already mentioned, the contract is between Excel and VCS who are owned by Excel.

The claimant in your case has not produced anything to show they have landowner authority to operate at this car park.

This should result in a complaint to the DVLA that the scammers are operating a for profit business without landowner authority, which is a breach of their KADOE contract.

skaart

Fruitcake wrote: »

That contract at para 3.6 refers to the BPA and their CoP. Therefore any contract requirements must be in line with the BPA CoP not that of the IPC, otherwise the contract is invalid.



No notice of termination means the contract they have quoted is still in force which only refers to the BPA, therefore only the BPA CoP can apply.
.

I'm not sure I follow why it means the contract is invalid, but presumably it does mean that if they (VCS) are bound to adhere to BOTH the CoP of the IPC and the BPA. The former as members of the IPC, the other due to (self imposed) contractual obligations to Excel. So I can presumably then look for ways they have breached the CoP of the BPA. The question is, if they have broken one of those BPA rules, (they almost certainly will have done, I'm guessing); is that an issue for the court and this case, or just a private contractual matter between them and Excel?

Fruitcake wrote: »

No notice of termination means the contract they have quoted is still in force which only refers to the BPA, therefore only the BPA CoP can apply.

As for the contract itself, it is between Excel and VCS which is owned by Excel.
In other words the contract is between Excel and themselves.
There is no mention anywhere of the landowner anywhere at all.

Your most important job is to identify the landowner. For a few quid you can obtain this information from the Land Registry. This is unequivocal evidence. If you have it you can destroy their case completely.
Nowhere have they shown they have the landowner's permission, or a contract with the landowner, to issue charges or take someone to court.

Again, I'm afraid I don't follow where this gets me. Surely I can put them to proof that VCS have the right to operate a parking scheme and that's it? How does the land registry doc help with this? Given that my case is a week away, I'm not sure this is doable in the time available.

Fruitcake

skaart wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow why it means the contract is invalid, but presumably it does mean that if they (VCS) are bound to adhere to BOTH the CoP of the IPC and the BPA. The former as members of the IPC, the other due to (self imposed) contractual obligations to Excel. So I can presumably then look for ways they have breached the CoP of the BPA. The question is, if they have broken one of those BPA rules, (they almost certainly will have done, I'm guessing); is that an issue for the court and this case, or just a private contractual matter between them and Excel?

This is minor but should still be mentioned.
The IPC did not exist when the contract was written.
The contract only mentions the BPA, therefore only the BPA CoP can apply.
The two CoPs are different. They have different requirements.
For the scammers to operate under the IPC CoP there should have been an amendment to the contract to say so. You state that no such amendment exists and therefore only the BPA CoP can apply, and you put the scammers to prove otherwise.

skaart wrote: »

Again, I'm afraid I don't follow where this gets me. Surely I can put them to proof that VCS have the right to operate a parking scheme and that's it? How does the land registry doc help with this? Given that my case is a week away, I'm not sure this is doable in the time available.

This is HUGE! The Land Registry entry will show the court who owns the land. It is irrefutable evidence of land ownership.

In order for the scammers to operate on that land, they MUST have a contract (permission) from the landowner.
They don't have one.

Indeed, the document they do have only shows a contract between VCS and Excel. Excel own VCS in its entirety. Therefore the contract is between Excel and Excel.
Excel are referred to only as the "lawful occupier" or "client". Nowhere do they say they are the landowner.
Nowhere do they say who the landowner is.
Nowhere do they show a contract with the landowner.
Lawful occupier just means tenant.

Imagine this.
A burger van parks in your garden and starts selling food. When you, the landowner, tell the bloke in the van to burger off, he produces a document saying he has a contract with the finance company that owns the van giving him permission to operate on your land.

There is no contract between the landowner and either the van operator or the van owner, only a contract between the van operator and the van owner.

This is the same. There is no proof that the landowner has given permission in the form of the contract to operate on the land specified.

You need to identify the landowner at the time of the alleged event, then state there was no contract between that landowner and VCS.

In the alternative you state there is no contract the between the landowner and Excel giving Excel the rights to employ VCS to operate on this land.
You put them to strict proof otherwise.

skaart

Fruitcake wrote: »

This is HUGE! The Land Registry entry will show the court who owns the land. It is irrefutable evidence of land ownership.

In order for the scammers to operate on that land, they MUST have a contract (permission) from the landowner.
They don't have one.

Indeed, the document they do have only shows a contract between VCS and Excel. Excel own VCS in its entirety. Therefore the contract is between Excel and Excel.
Excel are referred to only as the "lawful occupier" or "client". Nowhere do they say they are the landowner.
Nowhere do they say who the landowner is.
Nowhere do they show a contract with the landowner.
Lawful occupier just means tenant.

Imagine this.
A burger van parks in your garden and starts selling food. When you, the landowner, tell the bloke in the van to burger off, he produces a document saying he has a contract with the finance company that owns the van giving him permission to operate on your land.

There is no contract between the landowner and either the van operator or the van owner, only a contract between the van operator and the van owner.

This is the same. There is no proof that the landowner has given permission in the form of the contract to operate on the land specified.

You need to identify the landowner at the time of the alleged event, then state there was no contract between that landowner and VCS.

In the alternative you state there is no contract the between the landowner and Excel giving Excel the rights to employ VCS to operate on this land.
You put them to strict proof otherwise.

Thanks for your help here, Fruitcake.

I get this, I'm just missing one piece for it to make sense: I just don't quite follow why it would even be suspected that the landowner hadn't given permission. In your burger van analogy, "I" am the landowner... I KNOW I didn't give the burger van permission to be there- so of course I can spot the transgression of the van owner. But for the analogy to be parallel, "I" am a disgruntled customer of the burger flipper. It's up to me to prove the landowner has not consented to this, not for the burger van person to prove they have. Or does this all just come back to Para 10 of my defence putting them to strict proof that they had the authorisation to issue parking notices from the landowner? Would this line of attack me closed off to me had that para in the defence not been there?

There is another thing I'm potentially ignorant of here; that there is some legislation specifically requiring parking ops to have written permission from landowners, and that's the info I'm missing for this to click into place.

I don't doubt for one second that you're right, I just want to get my head around the path to how we got here. I don't like to just parrot stuff without properly comprehending.


EDIT: Ok I understand. So yeah I was missing that in order to operate, or more specifically it seems; to ask for keeper details from the DVLA, they need a chain of permission that stems from the landowner to the operator.