Court Letter Robinhood airport bus stop PCN help!

sm1tt

https://imgur.com/a/3WDaPOC


If this document is readable then i ask you to view points 33,34 and 35 relating to the CRA2015 and tell me im not going completely mad at what im reading??

Fruitcake

The link works fine, and the document is perfectly readable.

KeithP

sm1tt wrote: »

https://imgur.com/a/3WDaPOC


If this document is readable then i ask you to view points 33,34 and 35 relating to the CRA2015 and tell me im not going completely mad at what im reading??

Those paragraphs are rubbish and any lawyer worthy of the name would know that.

Whilst that quote from the CRA appears to be accurate, their interpretation is flawed.

The Explanatory Notes to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 explain in paragraph 35 that:

A “person” is not just a natural person but can also include companies, charities and arms of government (and the reference to a “person” can also include more than one person). So where these types of body are acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession, they are caught by the definition of trader.

This is nothing new. A business has always been considered a "person".

Fruitcake

From the CRA 2015,

(2)
“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

I am not legally trained but to my layman's understanding, the person who wrote the claim is a person acting on behalf of a business therefore the CRA applies to them.

KeithP

You also need to challenge paras 29 and 31 of their WS.

It was the County Court Business Centre's responsibility to serve a copy of your Defence on the Claimant.

It is not your fault if the CCBC failed to do that competently.

Did the Claimant ask you for the missing pages, but "despite their endeavours" failed to do so?
If not, there is no way that you would know that any were missing.

sm1tt

Glad its not just me that thinks that whole section from 33 is eroniuos. Thought i was going crazy when reading it.


Ive had no communication relating to missing documents and as such will be highlighting this in my WS as well as the Person not business so the judge is aware of it!


I sent copies of the defence to both CCBC and VCS next day delivery signed for and both arrived without fail (and unsurprisingly the same weight too!)

Umkomaas

Most of it is pure template stuff. They've (correctly) named the IPC as the 'International Parking Community' earlier in the WS - their current title, but later name them by their former title, the 'Independent Parking Committee'. Little care/proofreading has gone into that WS, which has been signed under a 'Statement of Truth'.

What's the name of the signatory please?

sm1tt

It is a poor statement by any stretch of the imagination! Even i thought so and i have no clue about WS's!!


The rep is Yousra Ibrahim VCS Litigation Dpt - apara legal with them since july this year!

Coupon-mad

I bet it almost matches this one from another new paralegal VCS have just employed:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76534392#Comment_76534392

Also, I have asked this poster to contact you, as you need to put in your ICO complaint to the same ICO staff member that he/she is in contact with who is currently investigating TWO other major data breaches by VCS:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6036614/county-court-vcs-residential-pcn&page=2

They know how to word an ICO complaint about VCS, it seems to me!

sm1tt

---

Witness Statement


4) Before I describe what I can recollect on the day of the events back in 2015, I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim is that:
A. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking as no parking was carried out,
B. The claimant’s signage at the time of the event did not reference bus stop/stand as evidenced in EX-1a and EX-1b (pages 1,2), it is also noted in EX-1b that contact details and operator information is not present as detailed it should be in the BPA Code of Practice Ref EX-2 (page 3).
C. Even if the terms and conditions were found to be in breach, the claimant is obliged by the compulsory Code of Practice of its own Accredited Trade Association to apply a Grace Period, if this Grace Period is questioned it should be brought to the courts attention that the only Entrance Sign from this direction of which highlights the alleged terms and conditions is for NO STOPPING (causeway), the helpline to contact VCS regarding stopping was found to be unreadable due local obstructions stopping the ability of any driver to read it as shown in EX-3a and EX-3b (pages 4,5).
D. All evidence shown is during the daylight hours, it is reminded to the courts that the events took place in the early hours of the morning when it was dark and therefore made entering any contract even more erroneous due to poor visibility and poor lighting around the signs.
E. Abuse of Process - regarding the initial County Court Claim where the Claimant seeks to recover the PCN, Contractual costs and Interest to the sum of £185 (see next page)
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](Here i have added Coupn-Mad's ABUSE OF PROCESS info from Post 14 of that very thread)
[/FONT]

BACKGROUND:-
On the date of the alleged contravention the defendant entered Doncaster/Sheffield airport from the south at around 06:50am in the month of November when suddenly the defendant felt nauseous, given that an onset of Nausea can be severe the defendant decided that an emergency such as this warranted pulling over immediately and did so accordingly, at this point the defendant reached over to open the passenger door to allow fresh air to enter and to prepare for the possible outcome of vomiting caused by nausea. After the feeling had passed the Defendant carried on about the day. The defendant had no inclination at the time that they had been entered into or accepted entrance to any such contract forthwith, it is also noted that the sign closest to the location of which the defendant was pulled into refers to ‘No Stopping’ (causeway) as described in the highway code, the causeway being the Two roads next to the bus stop not the bus stop itself which cannot categorically be seen as a causeway. Ref EX-5 (Page 8).

14) Having not received any correspondence from the Claimant until such times as a court letter from the CCBC had been sent to the correct address, there was no available opportunity for the defendant to supply evidence relating to the aforementioned emergency, therefore the Claimant has elected to pursue this matter via litigation, it is evidenced by the claimants own company that the initial letters sent to the defendants old address had been returned stating ‘Returned – Addressee gone away’ EX-6 (page 9) and as such the claimant was made aware that the defendant was no longer at this address, yet regardless of this information made no attempt over the following 4 years to make initial contact with the defendant and as such the defendant was never aware of any infringement.



15) It is my position that, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action to litigate in this matter. I base this on the case “PCM vs Bull” where defendants were issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “no parking at any time”.

A. District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive, and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.



16) It is my view that the Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws should be applicable and considered: -

A. VCS operates under Doncaster-Sheffield airport byelaws, due to the emergency encountered by the defendant in the early hours of the morning these fit the criteria specified in DSA byelaws and are supportive of my case as shown below and over page:-

‘5. PROHIBITED ACTS ON PARTS OF THE AIRPORT TO WHICH THE ROAD TRAFFIC ENACTMENTS DO NOT APPLY’
The following acts are prohibited on any part of the Airport to which the Road
Traffic Enactments do not apply:

“5 (3) Obstruction:
except in an emergency, leave or park a Vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in excess of the permitted time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by Notice”

and

“5(12) Parking of Vehicles
without reasonable excuse! Park a Vehicle elsewhere than in a place provided for that purpose.

17) Reason’s for stopping should be considered. In case “Jopson vs. Homeguard Services Ltd” (9GF0A9E), the Defendant stopped for a few minutes to unload some furniture and a desk outside the entrance to the building containing her flat and was issued a parking ticket. In his verdict/statement Judge Harris QC, made the following statement regarding the definition of the word “parking”:



“20. […] However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required”. The concept of parking as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it’ otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. “


A. Based on the previous statement it is considered that the issues encountered would be classed as minor vicissitude.

18) No offer of contract is being presented by the Claimant. In case “Ransomes vs Anderson”, the Defendant went to the industrial estate and after not being able to get into their designated parking area, parked on the road, on a double yellow line, for which he was issued a parking ticket. In his judgement the district judge rejected the contract claim on the basis that the notice was too vague and uncertain to generate contractual liability. The sign, in question, started with:

“Warning: Private property. Not Trespassing. No Parking. No Stopping. No Waiting. You have entered this private property. You are now subject to the terms and conditions of the land owner listed below”.

A. District Judge accepted in principle that Mr. Anderson committed a trespass and that trespass must have caused some loss to the claimant, in terms of expenses incurred, but made no award of damages in relation to it and dismissed the claim.

B. It is my belief, that by entering the private property and not obeying to the rules displayed on the notice, I did not form any contract with the Claimant because no such contract was presented to me.


19) In “Ransomes vs Anderson” case, the District Judge said:

“the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.

A. The district judge was plainly right to say that this notice, in contractual terms, was too vague and uncertain to have the requisite effect.
20) Both 'Jopson' and 'Ransomes' are persuasive appeal decisions which already existed and which fly in the face of the recent VCS v Ward flawed appeal decision, where a Judge was wrongly led by VCS about a brief stop, and was misled to wrongly consider Beavis which has no such application in these different fact cases (only in cases of similar facts - retail park overstays with the same clear signs). And the Defendant failed to adduce Jopson or Ransomes nor even appear at the appeal hearing to fight his side, so VCS v Ward should not carry the same persuasive weight compared to Jopson and Ransomes where the matters regarding 'stopping' as opposed to parking and agreeing a contract, were more thoroughly considered with all parties present.

In Defence of the Claimants Witness Statement,
21) The Claimant avers to not receiving a full and complete copy of the Defendant’s Defence of which the defendant has evidence of special delivery both to the CCBC and to the Claimant as evidenced in EX-7a (page 10)
22) In reference to section 33,34,35,36 and 37 it is established that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does apply to this contract and
[FONT=&quot]Consumer Rights Act 2015[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]35.Subsection (2) makes clear that a trader is a person acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession. It makes clear that a trader acting through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf, for example a trader which subcontracts part of a building contract or a company for which the employees make contracts with customers, is liable for proper performance of the contract. A “person” is not just a natural person but can also include companies, charities and arms of government (and the reference to a “person” can also include more than one person). So where these types of body are acting for purposes relating to their trade, business, craft or profession, they are caught by the definition of trader. Subsection (7) makes clear that a ‘business’ includes the activities of government departments and local and public authorities, which means that these bodies may therefore come within the definition of a trader. Not-for-profit organisations, such as charities, mutuals and cooperatives, may also come within the definition of a trader, for example, if a charity shop sells t-shirts or mugs, they would be acting within the meaning of trader.[/FONT]