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

KeithP

SoJacob said:

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.'

I would suggest one tiny change to that.

Change the last word of this sentence as shown...
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 driver.

Caveat...
I haven't recently re-read any of the previous 500+ posts on this thread so do not know whether the Defendant was driving or not. However, I do know that the driver was driving and it could only be the driver that entered into any contract.

Coupon-mad

Oh yes, it's not a car park either so change that bit to 'on land that appears to be either public highway (Airport road) or private land (car park entrance).

SoJacob

Dear @Coupon-mad and @KeithP, @Fruitcake. First of all apologies for the delay, had to face some unexpected situation. 

Please kindly see my final draft (hopefully), let me know if this is ok to be send? 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/u5504jez4f4ln5m2jrs58/Document-8.docx?dl=0&rlkey=hngy1okvoe6o1sue8plbo1k02

Exhibits : 
Exhibit 1- (defendant’s husband) clinic report (pages 1-3) (PRIVATE)
Exhibit 2 Enlarged photograph from PCN 3
Exhibit 3- Enlarge photographs from PCN 1 and 2 

Exhibit 04- Photograph taken from the retail park

EXHIBIT 05- The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 – case sign in comparison to any alleged Claimant sign


EXHIBIT 06 -The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 - Paragraphs 98, 193 and 198

EXHIBIT 07 Copy of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4


Exhibit 08- Copy of Excel Parking Services vs Wilkinson (G4QZ465V) Approved Judgement by Judge Jackson of Bradford County Court
 

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't include Exhibit 3 at all, because those red lines are clear & obvious and no driver should ever have pulled over there.

You can't use bus stops like laybys.  They are the opposite of a layby.  Not for cars.  Not for dropping off passengers.

You don't stop on red lines at all.

Exhibiting those photos helps the Claimant so don't do that.  However, your pics of that retail park showing it's EXCEL not VCS, are very useful.

SoJacob

Thank you. Should I still keep point 6? Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't include Exhibit 3 at all, because those red lines are clear & obvious and no driver should ever have pulled over there.

You can't use bus stops like laybys.  They are the opposite of a layby.  Not for cars.  Not for dropping off passengers.

You don't stop on red lines at all.

Exhibiting those photos helps the Claimant so don't do that.  However, your pics of that retail park showing it's EXCEL not VCS, are very useful.

SoJacob

@Coupon-mad, could you please give me let me know if my ws ready to be sent?

Coupon-mad

Maybe add something about no consideration (that you saw on the other Southend thread) and show us again.

When is it due?

SoJacob

@Coupon-mad, ok thank you. I’ll do it and share it. I have not got a date yet. I have emailed the court but no reply. 

SoJacob

@Coupon-mad can I add the below into my WS?

The Claimant (who is an accredited operator scheme member of IPC, International Parking Committee) has submitted no evidence regarding a consideration period. A contract to park by conduct cannot be formed unless there is a consideration period to discover, read, understand and accept the contract. To do any of these is impossible if a motorist is not allowed to stop or wait, in direct conflict with the IPC Code of Conduct’s “Considerations & Grace Periods”: “13.1 Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land.”. The Defendant maintains that the car was stopped for a period of time consistent with a consideration period, and was moved from the private land forthwith, thereby signalling that the Defendant has not accepted any contract (if such were to exist and be valid).

KeithP

IPC = International Parking Community.