VCS MCOL Darlington, Co. Durham

SteveTa

Good luck, I'll be amazed if the don't discontinue yours as well.

The_Deep

Another thing that I thought might be helpful if is that they have the Durham Constabulary logo on the sign


This surely must be ultra vires, have you contacted Durham's finest?

Jeff_Wode

Not yet because I`m still trying to figure this all out, maybe some of the Forum can help:


In their WS, the "Lawful Occupier" (I`m not sure if this means "The Landowner") is revealed by The Claimant to be "Easypark Northern" a "Car Park Management" management company based in Redcar, N. Yorks



Easypark appear to have one sign (just the company name) in the Car Park.



The Claimant appears to be contracted to run the site on their behalf.


On the Claimant`s WS (dated late November 2019) it states


"The Claimant submits they have had the authority to implement a parking scheme since September 2013. There has been no notice of termination and the Claimant remains contracted to enforce parking to date"


I mentioned in my WS that when I visited the Car Park to take pics in July 2019, there were now no signs with The Claimant`s name on, and put them to strict proof they still had authority to implement a PS as they stated.


I just stopped by the Car Park today and there are now a handful of signs up with the "Regent Parking" logo on. It appears Regent are now running things there.



Making matters more interesting, I googled "Easypark" and companycheck.co.uk lists them as "In liquidation" with their next accounts due in 2017, while Yell.Com (which has them listed as based in Stockton, Co. Durham) says "This company has been listed as 'permenantly closed' "


It all seems very confusing. Some may even go so far as to say say "dodgy."

Coupon-mad

Sounds very dodgy and EasyPark would not have been the landowner, either.

Jeff_Wode

I`ve been to all the businessess that are near the Car Park and asked who owns the land and the people I asked say they either don`t know or that it`s owned by members of the Travelling Community. The Council were no help. I could pay £3.00 to the Land Registry for the info but I`m loath to fork out any money - I don`t think it really matters this late in the day.


I still haven`t heard from The Claimant re a discontinuation (or had any communication from them), so I`m ploughing ahead in preparation for the hearing. I know that I must attend even if they do discontinue. Part of me hopes they don`t so I can see their rep explain to a judge why their own evidence contradicts their Statement of Truth, among other things.



I wish I`d know this about liquidation and Regent Parking before I handed my WS in:


I`m curious to know what Easy Park being in apparent Liquidation means for my case and if/how I should bring it to the Judge`s attention.

Jeff_Wode

Had my hearing recently - surpisingly, VCS actually sent someone to represent them. I thought he looked rather like Mel Smith. Didn`t catch his name. He did, as expected, try and take me somewhere private but I told him to save it for the Judge.


I think he was there because there were a few other cases from the same Car Park. My case was directly after one of these other cases which lasted all of 10 minutes and the defendant came out smiling and told me to expect a win as well because the Judge could not get past the "50p/hour 2.20 for 2 hours" signage picture that VCS had included in their own bundle (the same as can be seen on the Northern Echo article earlier on this thread).


When it was my turn, the Judge immediately told the VCS advocate how he`d ruled the last case and because the same photos were included in my case that he`d be doing the same again.


After giving Mel Smith a good kicking, he asked me if I had anything to add and I said I wanted to show they`d acted ureasonably, which I did. I told the court that their Particulars of Claim and Witness Statement both state that there was an entrance sign and yet the Claimant`s bundle showed that this was, in fact, not true.


The Judge agreed and awarded me LIP allowance. A couple of hours less than I put down for, but still a pleasing result.

I was slightly disappointed I didn`t get to address the fictional £60, armed with the VCS v Davies judgement in my bundle, but I thought I`d quit while I was miles ahead.


The Judge took more time over this decision and he said the fact I`d made quite a long witness statement (10+ pages detailing events from receipt of PCN to VCS`s final communication a few weeks ago plus laying into their contradictory, copy and paste WS/Bundle) went towards substantiating the LIP costs I`d claimed for.


I set the costs out exactly like Coupon Mad suggested and I think this helped a lot.


Glad to report another "W" for Team MSE - thank you all for your help, advice and support


"It`ll all be over by Christmas" - and indeed it was...


Merry Christmas to you all


Best Wishes


"Jeff"

nosferatu1001

Brill - what size of costs did you get in the end then!

Le_Kirk

Good result for you, well done!

Jeff_Wode

Good Morning and thank you.

Because I`m self employed and because I`d been made aware of the hearing date months in advance, I was able to reschedule my work and so I did not claim loss of earnings. It had been suggested to me to make up some hours, but I wanted to set an honest precedent against this odious band of scam artists and be seen to play a straight bat.

The Judge said "You haven`t claimed for parking costs, that can`t be right?"

I said "Sir, since this incident I am loath to use pay car parks and only do so when absolutely necessary. Today I parked a little further away in an unrestricted area and walked down."

He and Mel Smith agreed that this was commendable.

The Claimant was after £185 so I set my costs, including postage at just under that, however, when making the decision, the judge remarked about "proportionality" and that the claimant was "only" seeking £160 and so I came away with a little less than this amount.

I think there might be a lesson here for future defendants in these type of cases: The bar seems to be set quite high for "Unreasonable behaviour" (fortunately, in this case it was very clear that that bar had been surpassed) and also to maybe set LIP costs just under the amount claimed by the Claimant without including the £25 court fee.

Redx

Well done

Another one bites the dust !!