Please help- Please help !! PCN from Vehicle control services ltd

Le_Kirk

I am glad it wasn't me; I have just spent a pleasant (?) half hour trawling through all user names that looked like @Ksalamut as I do remember it being that!

SoJacob

County Court Claim Form Recieved - Page 2 — MoneySavingExpert Forum
I found this, @Coupon-mad are you referring to this? 

SoJacob

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sdc1u7w8zsrt3mn62zgt6/Document-5.docx?dl=0&rlkey=kuvce7frhg8d10bo9tdr6kvk4

Please could you proof read and let me know if anything else to be added or changed? Thank you. 

Kakhsal

@Coupon-mad @SoJacob @Le_Kirk

Apologies!!! I requested a username change that only took place yesterday. Apologies for the inconvenience! 

Fruitcake

SoJacob said:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sdc1u7w8zsrt3mn62zgt6/Document-5.docx?dl=0&rlkey=kuvce7frhg8d10bo9tdr6kvk4

Please could you proof read and let me know if anything else to be added or changed? Thank you. 

Para 7 doesn't make sense. There appears to be a few words missing.

You need to show us the exhibits/photos. You need to show that the car was not stopped in an area where there are red lines and/or no signs prohibiting stopping.

You need to make more of the fact that the area where the car was stopped is either outside the airport boundary and therefore outside the area where VCS are contracted to operate, or that it is in an area covered by either airport or railway byelaws, pointing out that dropping off/picking up is not a byelaw offence.

Para 25, the fake add on charges are not banned but under review. The intent to ban them however has not changed but you can't actually say they are banned at the moment.

If/when you have the claimant's WS then please show it to us, especially the alleged landowner contract. Do tell us if any part of their WS has been redacted and whether it was redacted by the claimant or by you.
Have you determined who the landowner is of the place where the alleged event occurred?

SoJacob

@Fruitcake, Thank you . Please see my exhibits. I will follow as you advised in my WS. I have not received any WS from the claimant yet. 

Exhibit 1-  defendant’s husband’s clinic report (pages 1-3) – PRIVATE

Exhibit 2 – PCN 1 

Exhibit 3 – PCN 2

Exhibit 4 – PCN 3 


Exhibit 5- Enlarged photograph from PCN 3


Exhibit 6: Enlarge photographs from PCN 1 and 2 



Exhibit 7: Photograph taken from the retail park 



Exhibit 8- The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – case sign in comparison to any alleged Claimant sign 


EXHIBIT 9 -The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 - Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198




EXHIBIT 10 Copy of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4


Exhibit 11: Copy of Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 
ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) - The Supreme Court

Exhibit 11- Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court

Fruitcake

I'll look in more detail later on, but the main observation I would make is that the signs say Excel Parking but the NTK says the creditor is VCS. These are completely separate companies so you should take screengrabs of Companies House web pages to show they are different companies with different company numbers.

The contract is formed by the signs and cannot be changed post event. Have a look at Thornton v Shoe Lane.

PCN refers to stopping in a restricted bus stop/stand but there are no signs stating the bus stop is a restricted area and the surface markings are illegible so could say drop off/pick up point for all anyone can tell. No red lines in the photos for PCN 3.

The signs only refer to airport service yard, not to bus stops

Coupon-mad

You have teo Exhibit 11s but you don't need this:

Exhibit 11: Copy of Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 
ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) - The Supreme Court

Also remove the NTKs. (Exhibits 2, 3 and 4) because VCS will exhibit those snd it looks like you are helping them!

A massive point is to say that the signs are in the name Excel Parking Services Ltd, company number xxxxxxx yet the NTKs and this claim tries to say that the creditor (and the contract is somehow with) is a stranger, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, company number xxxxxx.

Search the forum.  There is already wording for this exact point as we've seen this before.

SoJacob

Coupon-mad said:

Also remove the NTKs. (Exhibits 2, 3 and 4) because VCS will exhibit those snd it looks like you are helping them!

A massive point is to say that the signs are in the name Excel Parking Services Ltd, company number xxxxxxx yet the NTKs and this claim tries to say that the creditor (and the contract is somehow with) is a stranger, Vehicle Control Services Ltd, company number xxxxxx.

Search the forum.  There is already wording for this exact point as we've seen this before.

@Coupon-mad, I found this from the forum. Can I add this instead point 7?

'The claim was made in the name Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820), whereas the signage displayed at the material location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity.  Any contract in a private car park can only be formed by signage and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the Defendant. The Claimant were not a party to such a contract and cannot sue on it.'

Coupon-mad

Yep, perfect!  Attach your photos and other exhibits.  Show us your current draft WS and if we have time we can check it.