early morning ticket

The_Deep

I just don't quite follow why it would even be suspected that the landowner hadn't given permission.

Often contracts expire, are with the wrong company, (eg Excel/VCS), are signed by the wrong person, and, in the case of residential parking, residents' leases take have primacy.

skaart

OK for the moment, without having the land reg details, I have added:

Without express landowner permission and proof thereof, neither VCS nor Excel may operate a for-profit parking scheme on the land, regardless of what contract may exist between them. As per Part 3.6 f) of the KADOE (Keeper of A Vehicle at the Date Of the Event) contract with the DVLA, Without copies of landowner agreements relating to the land used by vehicles, the KADOE contract is invalid; they have no legal right to issue parking charges or to request keeper details from the DVLA.

Fruitcake

skaart wrote: »

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.

Spot on! It's good that you want to understand rather than quote parrot fashion.
Pat yourself on the back. You worked it out for yourself and can now use the knowledge you have gained against the scammers.

skaart wrote: »

OK for the moment, without having the land reg details, I have added:

Without express landowner permission and proof thereof, neither VCS nor Excel may operate a for-profit parking scheme on the land, regardless of what contract may exist between them. As per Part 3.6 f) of the KADOE (Keeper of A Vehicle at the Date Of the Event) contract with the DVLA, Without copies of landowner agreements relating to the land used by vehicles, the KADOE contract is invalid; they have no legal right to issue parking charges or to request keeper details from the DVLA.

In addition, the BPA CoP says much the same thing, which is why I mentioned that the contract ONLY refers to the BPA.
Do look up the IPC CoP as well to see what it says about landowner permission/contracts.
You can use that as, "in the alternative if the court agrees that the IPC CoP applies, then …"

Obtaining keeper details without permission to operate is not only a KADOE breach but also a DPA/GDPR breach and this should result in a complaint to the DVLA.
As well as a Land Registry entry you could ask the local council who pays the business or non-domestic rates for the car park. This is a guide to landownership but a Land Regestry entry is better.

skaart

IF anyone fancies a blooming good laugh... I have just spotted something quite hilarious.

I had thought that the Witness had failed to append their evidence of the PDT logs from the ticket machine- I mentioned it in my Skelly.

I was wrong. They did include it...

https://gofile.io/?c=qt3LwJ

...What I had thought to be a misprint or some kind of printer glitch on the final page of their evidence booklet: on closer inspection turns out to be approximately 574 lines of ticket machine records, printed out onto a single piece of A4 paper!!

There has to be something I can add to my list of unreasonable behaviour here. Some rule about not taking the p**s??

I hope the judge brings a magnifying glass. :search: :undecided:

Umkomaas

I hope the judge brings a magnifying glass.

He'll need a microscope. I blew it up to 400% using the + button on the pdf file, still tiny, but then completely blurred.

skaart

May I make a suggestion for future: that regulars encourage Ops to post something unique in threads which are successful with their inflated costs claims for unreasonable behaviour: it would make the forum much easier to search.

I found a great example some time ago but lost the tab. Been trying to find it for well over an hour with no luck. I have LOC123 and [edit: "another" don't know where I got "sassii" from] example and I'm looking through some PD rules, but having been working my skeleton all weekend since I got home on Friday, I'm pretty sapped. I think I might put in . Standard costs schedule and have done with it and have a glass of wine and chill out! I certainly did not go through mich of an ordeal to and from with the clamiant and the particulars of the claim seem up to scratch.

Thanks everyone again for their assistance in guiding me up to this point. I think I need to draw a line under what I've done now and wait for my day in court. I have a business to run and I need to get back to that tomorrow, trying to make up for the day I'll lose on Friday in court.

skaart

Court Day was today. 10am Hearing, which began 20 mins late.
It's now 10:49 and I'm already in a cafe having a celebratory carrot juice and chocolate brownie.

Thank to everyone for all their help and pointers. I'll let @CouponMad remind us of their favourite Queen song. What was it again?!


COURT REPORT: F9QZ7E62

It's a short one really; and won't offer any surprises for anyone familiar with the history of Albert St.

I arrived nice and early. I cannot stress this enough to anyone appearing at court for the first time. ARRIVE IN LOADS OF TIME!

The receptionist was really helpful: I asked the the name of the judge and how to address them and I waited. Scheduled for 10am but we were admitted around 10:20.

DJ Smith (Ma'am; Not of Manchester Fame) told us to take our seats and began her preamble.

I wasn't sure when to ask about Rights of Audience, so I asked "Ma'am? And began to ask about it when it seemed I had the moment to do so. I was told off and DJ Smith nevertheless finished quite abruptly assuring me the rep did have rights Audience.

DJ Smith began. I missed the name of the rep; given the circumstances we shall call him Mr Lamb.
DJ Smith pointed out that Mr Lamb had some fairly glaring issues to deal with.She referred to the contract and pointed out that, dated as it was from 2010 and lasting 60 months, it was out of date by the time of the alleged contravention, with no evidence of it being reinstated. She then pointed to the signage issues, noting that at one point the the signage was in the name of Excel, and further; that the extraneous evidence provided was not legible, so there was no proof of at what point the signage was changed. Mr Lamb sheepishly pointed out the "artwork" provided by VCS which DJ Smith quickly pointed out was just the graphic design, not a photo, and had no date stamp on it and was therefore useless. Mr Lamb [STRIKE]muttoned[/STRIKE] muttered something in agreement.. "Yes Ma'am". Or was it "Maaa'aa'aam"? It was hard to be sure.

On top of which, the defendant has sent VCS evidence of their payment already. Mr Lamb seemed quite surprised at this, and had already been scrabbling around looking for the signs in the name of Excel she had been referring to. It seems that VCS had perhaps sent him my WS but not the evidence.[insert your own 'they pulled the wool over his eyes' joke here] It was clear at this point to everyone that VCS had sent poor Mr Lamb to the slaughter.

Mr Lamb politely accepted the evidence without being shown it. "...sent ewe here to fall at the first hurdle" or words to that effect were said more than once. And with that the Judge dismissed the case.

I waited for DJ Smith to finish any bits she was saying and asked about my costs. She said that they weren't permissible except under CPR 27.14. I said yes I know, and I have here a list of reasons why I believe the Clamiant had indeed acted unreasonably,

"I think you should quit while you're ahead" She said.

So I did.

Mr Lamb was sent back out to pasture (he had his own little room adjacent to the waiting room, so perhaps he works there full time?). I almost wanted to say something conciliatory as he really had been hung out to dry by VCS

As I suspected for a while, the case was probably winnable using not much more than the Claimant's own evidence against them. The out of date, illegitimate and ultimately irrelevant contract. The contradictory signage, and their attempt to include an entire day's worth of traffic machine logs on a single side of A4 paper. All I would have needed extra was a single photo of the old signage from the Prankster's Blog.

Beware though; the images they have of the site from days before this ticket was issued DO include the main sign, they just printed it out so small that the wording "you are entering into a contract with..." was illegible. They may blow it up/ print out a better copy next time. Not that that alone would save them. I have no idea why they brought this case. Even a cursory glance at page 1 of my defence back in June would have given them all the info they needed to show they couldn't possibly win. Besides which they know all the flaws In this case already. It all still seems very strange to me.

Ultimately a good win, though I have to say that after all that research, learning and effort, I'm a little sad that I did not even get to say my piece.

Thanks again all. Let me know if there's anything I can do to give something back in terms of info, assistance, etc.

snapdragon855

The 60 month bit in the contract may not work as there is an additional clause in the contract further down that basically says the contract continues on a rolling basis unless terminated by either party.

All of it is irrelevant though, as this is a contract between Excel and VCS, not the landowner. So it does not give the Claimant the right to operate or issue proceedings - that's the winning argument!

Umkomaas

All of it is irrelevant though, as this is a contract between Excel and VCS, not the landowner. So it does not give the Claimant the right to operate or issue proceedings - that's the winning argument!

I've not been back over the whole thread, but Excel do lease some car parks, so just check whether that's the case here before relying on your position on this.

Apols if you've covered it previously.

KeithP

But, but, but... the OP won their case last Friday.